Introduction to Hilchos Eruvin — A Positive Commandment from the Words of the Sages

Opening of the Shiur

Good, we are going to learn Rambam. We are going to begin with God’s help Hilchos Eruvin. We have already finished the thirty chapters of Hilchos Shabbos in the Rambam, and there we already learned also the foundations upon which we are going to learn further here. We already learned that one may not carry in certain situations from one courtyard to another, and we learned that one may not go outside the techum Shabbos.

In Hilchos Eruvin they established corrections for these two problems. How can one indeed carry in one courtyard or in one mavoy from one domain to another? And how can one indeed go more than the techum Shabbos? And the trick, the solution, the answer to these two problems is through something that is called eruv. That is what unifies the matter of the correction, the bread that corrects the matter of eruv chatzeros, and the bread that corrects the matter of techum Shabbos, as we will learn more or less.

Right. So let’s first say the introduction. Also one must give thanks for the donors of the shiur, who provide the bread of the eruv that connects all Jews. A thing that connects Jews is the bread, and the intention that one puts into the bread, that is R’ Yoel Wertzberger and all the other listeners of the shiur, participants in the shiur. There is indeed shomea k’oneh for a shiur. One can make an inquiry whether shomea k’oneh helps on a telephone, but for Talmud Torah shomea k’oneh certainly helps. So each person who hears the shiur is as if he is saying the shiur, just like shomea k’oneh. Although it’s a bit more work to say the shiur than to listen to the shiur, but we appreciate each person who hears this, and each person who sends money, and each person who strengthens the matter. And now we are going to learn the mitzvah of Hilchos Eruvin.

The Rambam’s Introduction: “One Positive Commandment, and It Is from the Words of the Sages, and It Is Not Counted in the Number”

Speaker 1: Yes? Yes. So let’s… the words “Mitzvos Hilchos Eruvin” is the Rambam’s chapter?

Speaker 2: No, no, I made the chapter, because at the beginning of each law the Rambam writes which mitzvos there are. So let’s learn what he says.

Okay, the Rambam says Hilchos Eruvin, the Rambam says like this: One positive commandment, and it is from the words of the Sages, and it is not counted in the number.

Explanation of the Rambam’s Words

Let’s explain what he means to say. In most laws he begins that it’s a continuation… The Rambam made his book, that in the introduction to the Mishneh Torah he counted all 613 mitzvos, and these are the Written Torah of the mitzvos, and afterwards the Rambam elaborates on each one, he gives the Oral Torah, all the laws with the Rabbinic ones, I mean, the laws from the Gemara, from the Mishnah, from the matter. So his order is, one begins with the positive commandments, and one goes on to the laws. Here he also left the same order, although it’s different, because he doesn’t really have a positive commandment here, because the whole thing is from the words of the Sages. But it is a positive commandment, he calls it a positive commandment from the words of the Sages. Although usually he doesn’t count any words of the Sages, he didn’t count that he has a number of mitzvos from the words of the Sages. Therefore he says “one from the number,” which is not from the count of 613 mitzvos, and it’s also not from any count, because the Rambam didn’t make the number that people know, seven Rabbinic mitzvos. The Rambam didn’t write I think that there are seven Rabbinic mitzvos.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Approach to Rabbinic Mitzvos

We already spoke about this in the shiur, but once I looked at the list that people say are seven Rabbinic mitzvos, someone figured out, a later authority, Rabbi David, do you remember who?

Speaker 1: It’s in Sefer Charedim, no?

Speaker 2: It’s even before him?

Speaker 1: Very late.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s really a later authority of later authorities. I mean, a later authority from Poland back then. The matter is, the matter is, he says it’s 620, in the order of 613 plus 7. Okay. The Rambam says, “one from the number,” and “the explanation of this mitzvah in these chapters,” and in the coming chapters the Rambam is going to explain.

Why Does the Rambam Call Both Topics “One Mitzvah”?

Yes, one must say another two things. That is, first of all, it’s apparently more than one mitzvah, because in Hilchos Eruvin, Maseches Eruvin, there are two things that have very little to do with each other, that both are called eruv, right? One is the topic of eruv chatzeros, which if we’re already talking, eruv chatzeros is essentially a prohibition with a permission on it, true? He’s going to explain it clearly in the first chapter, but the prohibition to carry even in a place that does have partitions, but it’s more than one dwelling, more than one person lives there, and the permission on it is with bread, shitufei mevoos the same thing. Afterwards eruv techumin is only a permission, that if one wants to go further than a techum Shabbos, there is a solution through placing down bread. Or a piece of bread, food, in between. There is also a prohibition, because indeed there is two thousand amos, and I say, both have the thing that the Sages added a stringency, and afterwards they added a permission for the stringency.

Discussion: The Connection Between Eruv Chatzeros and Eruv Techumin

Speaker 1: What I mean to ask is, whether the bread can help for the two thousand amos, for the two thousand… There’s no difference, because how is it relevant? It’s something one can walk. It’s more than the two thousand amos.

Speaker 2: So, apparently the connection of the two things is only that both are called eruv. The Rambam is going to say it himself, if I remember later, why one calls it eruv for both. But in any case, not truly the same mitzvah. If it were a true list of Rabbinic mitzvos, one would certainly have to count eruv techumin and eruv chatzeros as separate. But the Rambam calls it a mitzvah simply because it comes in the chapters of this book.

The Two Laws in Mishneh Torah That Have a “Rabbinic Mitzvah” Header

And if I remember, in the entire Sefer Mishneh Torah there are only two laws where in the chapter it says Rabbinic mitzvos. Although there are more laws, yes, tractates, groups of laws that are simply Rabbinic. That’s certain, in each, almost each there are also Rabbinic ones. Just as the Rambam says in Shoresh 1 regarding the Behag who counted certain Rabbinic mitzvos, and the Rambam says he doesn’t understand what he’s doing, because if one must count Rabbinic ones there are thousands of Rabbinic mitzvos, especially negative commandments, let’s say, because most of the time the Sages make fences, but there are also positive Rabbinic commandments.

Apparently the only two laws that have a header that says a positive Rabbinic commandment are Hilchos Eruvin and Hilchos Megillah v’Chanukah, both in Sefer Zemanim. In later books there are other books, like Hilchos Keilim or Hilchos Kinyan, I remember we checked, I don’t remember now the list exactly, but the Rambam says that they are laws, they are like rules of… they are not mitzvos. And others he doesn’t mention by name, he is particular to write a mitzvah for each law. There are laws that are not built on mitzvos, or not directly on mitzvos, right? But it seems to me that Sefer Zemanim, since all the laws of Sefer Zemanim are mitzvos from the Torah, except for these two, he did write in a Rabbinic mitzvah in the header. And here he wrote only one, and in Hilchos Megillah I remembered he writes that there are two mitzvos, right? Chanukah and Megillah. Ah, right, because it’s both two laws in one book, Chanukah and Megillah.

Discussion: Netilas Yadayim and Other Rabbinic Mitzvos

Speaker 1: Netilas yadayim he put in tefillah and in Krias Shema?

Speaker 2: Netilas yadayim he put in Hilchos Brachos, we already learned that he didn’t count it. No, he didn’t write inside that there is an enactment of the Sages to do netilas yadayim. They say it’s not simple that he is particular to count, it’s simply because here he had two sets of laws where there’s nothing to write from above, so he divided it. Not copy-paste, because the Rambam wrote, not… I’ll tell you, many times when someone makes a book, he takes the same heading and he copy-pastes. But he did keep the same structure. Right, and by the Rambam he says one takes a count, because the Rambam says, why do I write the mitzvos? So I should remember that I haven’t forgotten one. He says, when you make the total, don’t count this, because this is not a mitzvah from the count of 613 mitzvos upon which the book is built.

Why Did the Rambam Separate Hilchos Eruvin from Hilchos Shabbos?

In general, why did the Rambam separate out Hilchos Eruvin? Because the Gemara already made Shabbos separate and Eruvin separate, and the Rambam tried to follow the Gemara. Not necessarily, but simply the explanation is because Hilchos Shabbos came out very long, and Chazal already made Eruvin, and it has a connection. And they spoke about this a bit when they learned the laws of hotza’ah in Hilchos Shabbos.

The Rambam’s Order and the Order of the Mishnah

It’s true that the Rambam says in his introduction to Sefer HaMitzvos that he thought to make it according to the order of the Mishnah, and he noted, he saw that it won’t work practically, he has a better order. But it could be that he did take, as they say, inspiration. Very many things from the Rambam do indeed match the Mishnayos, I mean. There is Maseches Sukkah and Maseches Rosh Hashanah. Not exactly, but the Rambam is built a bit on the order of the Mishnah.

The Difference Between the Rambam’s Eruvin and the Mishnah’s Eruvin

And even here he didn’t do like the Mishnah, why is the Rambam’s Shabbos Eruvin different from the Mishnah’s Shabbos and Eruvin? Because in Maseches Eruvin there are also laws of partitions, not only laws of eruv chatzeros from the bread. The Rambam put all the laws of partitions in Hilchos Shabbos, because it’s essentially details of the prohibition of carrying from domain to domain. What remained in Hilchos Eruvin are only the laws of the partnership, of the bread. In general there didn’t remain the laws of the… There remained certain laws, yes, how one connects a… how is it called… a courtyard should be one courtyard, but everything only regarding the Rabbinic aspect of eruv, not regarding the matter of the Torah law of partitions.

Discussion: Laws of Hotza’ah in the Mishnah and Rambam

Speaker 1: And in the Gemara also, I mean in the Mishnah there is also a large part of hotza’ah that’s in Shabbos, motzi from domain to domain.

Speaker 2: Yes, but all the laws of correcting partitions, yes, you’re right, all the laws of lechi and koreh the Rambam put in Hilchos Shabbos, and in the Mishnah it’s in Hilchos Eruvin, Maseches Eruvin, lechi and koreh. Yes, exactly, all these things that are making the partition or the domain, not that the residents should be different, he put in Hilchos Shabbos.

But I say that in Shabbos, in the Mishnah it’s also not really divided, because hotza’ah is also in both places, motzi from domain to domain, various laws about zorek, motzi.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s what I say, but the Mishnah is a bit different. In the Mishnah there is the main prohibition of hotza’ah that’s indeed in Hilchos Shabbos, but the partitions themselves are not in Hilchos Shabbos for the most part.

Speaker 2: The Rambam did put it in.

Anyway, that’s the topic of salvation. I mean another thing that one must speak about regarding the mitzvah, one makes a blessing on the mitzvah.

Blessing on Eruv — “Who Sanctified Us with His Commandments and Commanded Us Concerning the Mitzvah of Eruv”

Indeed, not on every Rabbinic law does one make a blessing, “who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of eruv.” One makes an eruv, whether eruv chatzeros, whether eruv techumin, whether eruv tavshilin. The Rambam understands that this is a kind of Rabbinic mitzvah like the Torah mitzvah of shechitah. There is no obligation to do it, but if one wants to carry one must do this. And on the action that the Sages enacted that if one wants to carry one must do, comes a mitzvah, “who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of eruv.”

Discussion: Blessing on Rabbinic Mitzvos

Speaker 1: It’s a bit different. Here it is indeed different. You imply that one makes on all Rabbinic mitzvos.

Speaker 2: Presumably he made a list of the Rabbinic mitzvos on which one makes a blessing. Not on every thing that the Rabbis say does one make a blessing.

But the word eruv itself already says this, because if one would have thought that there is a prohibition, the Sages say that one may not carry from house to house in the courtyard, a branch that if you want to indeed there is a way.

Hilchos Eruvin — The Enactment of Shlomo and His Court

Hilchos Eruvin, Chapter 1, Law 1 — Torah Law: It Is Permitted to Carry in a Private Domain

Speaker 1:

But the name is on the solution, the name is not on the prohibition. Someone could have thought that the main point here is the innovation that they came up with a prohibition, but no, the innovation is that they came up with a permission. The prohibition with the permission at the same time. Right, I said the name of the tractate and the name of the laws is on the permission part, not on the prohibition part.

Indeed, this fits very well with what we learned in all of Hilchos Shabbos, that the Rabbis never make any prohibition that doesn’t come with a way how to fulfill it. That is, a thing where there is a need for it, not that they never make life harder, they only make the way how one must do it so that it should be Shabbos-like.

Already, the Rambam says like this, yes, Chapter 1. Chapter 1, the Rambam says: “A courtyard that has many neighbors, each one of them in a house by himself” — a courtyard that has several neighbors, but several neighbors doesn’t mean that several people live in one dwelling, then it would certainly be called one dwelling, but each one has a different house in the courtyard. What? One must find out about this, but yes, let’s see. Each one lives in his own house in the courtyard. “The Torah law is that they should all be permitted to carry in the entire courtyard”. That all these neighbors, even though they live separately, may share in the courtyard. And it means both in the empty space of the courtyard that belongs to all of them, or also from their own space to the courtyard, or from the courtyard to their space. From houses to courtyard and from courtyard to houses. From their house to the courtyard and back.

Why? Because the entire courtyard is one private domain, as we discussed, that this is called a private domain. When it’s surrounded by partitions, or whatever it has according to the laws of domains that we learned in Hilchos Shabbos, this is called a private domain. And in a private domain the law from the Torah is that it is permitted to carry in all of it, one can carry around in the whole thing.

The Law of a Mavoy — Lechi and Koreh

And the same thing is with a mavoy. But a mavoy we already learned in Hilchos Shabbos that a mavoy has a problem, we’ll already see. And the same law with a mavoy that has a lechi and koreh. A mavoy we already learned that one cannot carry without a lechi and koreh. That means, a mavoy we learned is close to the public domain, and therefore, we already learned that one must add something so that it should be a recognition that here begins a new domain, a private domain. A mavoy is also a type of private domain. The lechi and koreh helps make it into a private domain.

And the same law with a mavoy that has a lechi and koreh, that all the people of the mavoy, all the people who live in the alley, that in the alley there are separate houses, separate courtyards, should be permitted to carry in all of it, they should be able to carry in the entire mavoy. And the same thing, from courtyards to mavoy and from mavoy to courtyards.

Why? Because the entire mavoy is a private domain. Yes, here one must remember that here the Rambam already distinguished between a true Torah sanctity and an enactment of the Sages. Because a mavoy is a place that has three partitions, at least a closed mavoy, not an open mavoy. And we already explained in Hilchos Shabbos that by Torah law one would be allowed to carry there, because it’s called a private domain. The lechi and koreh is an addition that the Rabbis placed, that one must make a recognition.

But what he says here, that it seems, true Torah laws, he means even Rabbinically it would be permitted. Even Rabbinically it is permitted after the lechi and koreh. Right, from the Torah it is truly permitted even without a lechi and koreh. He already said before Torah law. He doesn’t go into the distinction here, as the Maggid Mishneh explains.

The Law of a City — Surrounded by a Wall

And the same law with a city that is surrounded by a wall ten tefachim high, we learned that there is also a way to validate an entire city, and make it so that it should have the law of a private domain and one should be able to carry around, if the city is surrounded by a wall ten tefachim high, that has doors that are locked at night, that one can lock at night. Which then we learned that the law is that it is like a private domain, the entire city surrounded by a wall becomes a private domain. This is Torah law.

All Three Categories of Reshus Hayachid – Torah Law

These three categories of reshus hayachid that are already min haTorah good to go, they can already carry as it is, that’s the din Torah. It simply went with three levels, yes? And the level goes: a house, several houses become one courtyard, several courtyards in one mavoi, and many mavois are one city. All these things, as long as they have the mechitzos, they’re called reshus hayachids, and one may carry in the whole thing.

And also here, just as the Mishnah, the Rambam already went into exactly how the delasot hane’ulos should look, they learned that it doesn’t have to be actually locked, but ra’uyos. Okay, but these are already details that have been learned.

Hilchos Eruvin, Chapter 1, Halacha 1 (continued) – Divrei Sofrim: The Prohibition to Carry Until They Make an Eruv

Speaker 1:

But, here is where we want to get to, but there is a takanas chachamim, divrei sofrim, the chachamim prohibited, asur lashcheinim letaltel birshus hayachid, the chachamim prohibited for neighbors to carry in the reshus hayachid, in one of the three reshus hayachids that we laid out, she’yesh bah chalukos diyurin, if there are people living there separately, if the one reshus hayachid is divided for different diyurin, for different residents, one may not be metaltel, ad she’ye’arvu kol hashcheinim, until one does the solution.

What is the solution? She’ye’arvu kol hashcheinim, all the neighbors should make what’s called an eruv. What does that mean? They should all mix together through the eruv. Eruv is a lashon of mixing, they should mix, they should become one. The opposite of chalukah is eruv. Chalukah is divided, she’ye’arvu is they should become mixed all together. She’ye’arvu kol hashcheinim kodem erev Shabbos, as he’s already going to say what the eruv is and how it works.

And the halacha that they prohibited, the issur of the chachamim, the issur is until one does the solution. Until one does the heter it’s echad chatzer ve’echad mavoi ve’echad hamedina. The three that he just enumerated, the three make the takanah.

Takanas Shlomo U’veis Dino – Historical Background

Speaker 1:

When is this divrei sofrim? When did it begin? Here it says, takanas Shlomo u’veis dino. It’s a takanah of Shlomo u’veis dino.

We already know that divrei sofrim doesn’t mean a specific generation, it just means usually when the Gemara says “rabanan” it means the things that are in the Gemara. There are perhaps things that are with divrei nevi’im that are different, but the category of d’Oraisa and d’rabanan, everything that wasn’t given l’Moshe miSinai is called d’rabanan. There were things that are in Yeshayahu HaNavi that we learned last night. Here he says that it’s a takanah of Shlomo u’veis dino. It’s interesting. It’s a historical…

Speaker 2:

Yes, I just want to say, no, I mean we’ll give a short introduction to what you said, you’re right, there’s no difference l’halacha when it was made, and we don’t say. For d’Oraisa you know, all d’Oraisa the Ribbono Shel Olam gave b’Har Sinai in the forty days, forty years, whatever it is. But d’rabanans, it’s from the time of Moshe, Yehoshua, Moshe until the time of Rav Ashi and Ravina still made takanos d’rabanan. Moshe himself, “Moshe tikein lahem l’Yisrael she’yihu sho’alin v’dorshin b’inyano shel yom”, is a d’rabanan, because Moshe didn’t receive it with Torah she’bichsav.

And most d’rabanans, I would say most d’rabanans we don’t say when it was made. For some reason, certain things, like we learned takanos nevi’im, certain things are interesting. Shlomo HaMelech was also a navi. So it’s interesting to know that Shlomo HaMelech made it, it doesn’t make it more stringent or less stringent, it’s just a historical fact. To know regarding what there’s a matter that’s more stringent? I don’t know. If you know, you know. We learned last night what Ezra was metaken a din in oneg Shabbos. It’s more important. And the Rambam goes in halacha daled to say the reason for the takanah.

Speaker 1:

But first you wanted to say, what does Shlomo HaMelech come in on?

Speaker 2:

So usually when the chachamim say that something was metaken by a certain generation, not when they say “rabanan hakedoshim” were metaken, simply they were there, they were metaken. But when we say that Shlomo, or there are things that we learn takanos Ezra, like it says takanos Moshe, we learned by krias haTorah like it says takanos Moshe, other things… We learned earlier, beis dino shel Shem, much before kabbalas haTorah.

Speaker 1:

Yes, that’s not, that’s not any d’rabanan.

Speaker 2:

Doesn’t have to follow takanos chachamim, learn hilchos ishus, issur u’biah, when yes and when no. Apparently it’s always built on this, on a certain knowledge that we know from Tanach that the person, the character, the figure from Tanach had something to do with that topic.

Like we say Moshe Rabbeinu was metaken krias haTorah, it makes sense, he gave the Torah, so he also made a seder when we read the Torah. We can see hints even in the Chumash, he made hakhel, he made things of krias haTorah.

Or we say that Ezra made shi’ur achilah, machzir atarah l’yoshnah, or that one should be mechaber on chamishi, because Ezra was metaken the seder hachaim of the Jews in knisas bayis sheini, like the gashmiyus, he was metaken takanos, we see in Sefer Ezra also such things.

If we say that Shlomo HaMelech was metaken eruv, and the Gemara says eruv u’netilas yadayim, we need to understand what’s the connection of Shlomo HaMelech’s level in Jewish history of Tanach, why should we say that he made the takanos, yes?

Chiddush in the Name of Rav Hai Gaon – Why Specifically Shlomo HaMelech

On this I found an answer in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, who says an explanation. He doesn’t exactly ask the question, but he was asked a similar question. He was asked, what does it mean, we didn’t wash hands? What did they do before? They didn’t make eruv? It’s very difficult, why shouldn’t they carry? An interesting question, why not? There was no takanah. That’s the actual question of Rav Hai Gaon.

So he said a beautiful Torah. He says that we’re going to learn soon, we’ve already learned a bit, that b’machaneh there are many things that are permitted b’machaneh. In a machaneh, when one goes to war, there are four d’rabanans that are permitted. Two of them are eruv u’netilas yadayim. In a machaneh one is exempt from making an eruv, and also exempt from washing hands.

He says that we see in Tanach that Shlomo HaMelech is called the first one who was “ish menucha”, yes? He’s an ish menucha, he had peace. In his years they began to have peace with the Jews, out of the machaneh, out of the situation of machaneh. We can say the entire tekufas hashoftim before Dovid HaMelech was a bechina of machaneh, then they were anyway exempt from eruv.

We don’t have to say that he says so halachically that they were exempt, we can simply say it wasn’t yet the reality. Only Shlomo HaMelech built the first Jewish capital city, Yerushalayim, the Mishkan was built in Yerushalayim, he made the city, and a city begins the whole concept of eruv and more, and delasot hayordim it seems was made for people who live in such a settled manner, when in the field the delasot hayordim aren’t relevant.

So apparently that’s the secret, so eruv has to do with binyan Beis HaMikdash, with the building of Yerushalayim.

Eruv Chatzeiros – Takanas Shlomo HaMelech

Halacha 3 – Ohalim, Sukkos, Machaneh, and Shayara

And so, not only a courtyard, not only when it’s an organized courtyard with houses, but even those dwelling in tents or sukkos, people who live in temporary dwellings, like tents or sukkos, or a machaneh that’s surrounded by a mechitzah, or a machaneh, a group of Jews, a military, that’s surrounded by a mechitzah, one may not carry from tent to tent until they all make an eruv, one also may not be metaltel, because after all it’s the same thing, if there are different residents in the same reshus hayachid, there’s also on this the takanas chachamim that one may not be metaltel from tent to tent, but one does the same lashon like an eruv.

But a city surrounded by a mechitzah, that’s just a machaneh, surrounded by a mechitzah. A machaneh means more permanent.

The Difference Between Machaneh and Shayara

But a shayara, a shayara that travels that has surrounded itself with a mechitzah, is different, because the shayara is like one family, like a large family. They travel together, they travel the roads together, and even if they’ve surrounded themselves with a mechitzah, and even if they’ve set up different tents, “they don’t need to make an eruv, and they may carry from tent to tent without an eruv, because they’re all mixed together.” They can carry from tent to tent without an eruv, “because they’re all mixed together”, they’re already me’urav. Here he uses the word “ta’aruvei kehilla” meaning he makes the trick that makes them me’urav the act of eruv, but they’re already me’urav without any bread. “And their tents aren’t fixed for them”, the tents aren’t permanent, they’re one group. You see that when one travels together in a shayara they become like one. Different from a machaneh that goes together.

It’s interesting, we need to know why a machaneh, for example military, also applies to such a temporary thing, even if they’ve already set up three days before Shabbos, which we learned last night that the war begins. But okay, he says that a shayara is more familiar with each other, they travel a long way, they’re called “they can make an eruv, and their tents aren’t fixed for them.” Even if each one has his own tent, but it’s just an addition, I know, for tznius, but essentially they’re all familiar with each other.

The Beis Yosef’s Question

So, the Rambam says… yes, the Beis Yosef struggles, I see, we just remembered, because a machaneh actually has an exemption, so we must make some distinction. That refers to a machaneh that travels, but when one has already made some settled machaneh it becomes yes an obligation. We need to understand this.

The machaneh stands for eight days normally, the shayara stands just for Shabbos. That means, perhaps the machaneh he means not a war, just a machaneh, they made a camp, Machaneh Beis Yaakov, I don’t know what. It’s not a machaneh, it’s a machaneh, it’s not a city, but it’s a permanent thing. The shayara is simple, they made the tent just for Shabbos, yes, motzaei Shabbos they travel further, it’s not a permanent thing. And the people of the shayara conduct themselves like one family, they travel together after all, so we don’t need to… yes, you’re saying two things by the shayara. He says first of all, “they’re all me’urav.” You know, by the machaneh everyone eats from the same cook, we need to know, also the tents aren’t permanent.

Okay, so the Rambam…

Halacha 4 – The Reason for Shlomo’s Takanah

“Why did Shlomo establish this thing?” Why did Shlomo establish this thing, I mean the prohibition, the prohibition that one may not carry in the same courtyard or mavoi? The Rambam says, “so that the people shouldn’t err and say”, so that the public shouldn’t make a mistake. And people would have been able to make such a bad calculation, they would have said this, “just as it’s permitted to take out from the courtyards to the streets of the city and its markets and to bring in from the courtyards”, he would have said this, just like one may carry from the courtyards, which are reshus hayachid, to the streets of the city. Streets of the city he means here the city that’s locked at night, yes? So when a person looks when, he would have seen how one carries from something that looks to him like reshus hayachid to something that looks to him like reshus harabim, because it’s streets in the city. Ah, it’s not really, it’s reshus hayachid because there are locked doors, but he sees how one carries to the streets and markets, and afterwards if we don’t make eruv chatzeiros anymore, he’ll think, “so too it’s permitted to take out from the city to the field and to bring in from the field to the city”, one may also from the streets one may carry to the field which is a karmelis, we’ve forgotten the halacha of karmelis, “and to bring in from the field to the city”.

“And they’ll think that the field and the desert”, whatever, yes, but such a gezeira l’gezeira is still an interesting thing. He could have said simply, the person won’t know that there are locked doors at night.

The Main Innovation – People’s Understanding of Reshus Hayachid/Reshus Harabim

But look what he says here, a wonder how… “And they’ll think that the markets and streets are a domain for all to see like fields and deserts”, they’ll think this way, that since everyone can move about in the markets and streets, they won’t know, they’ll think that it’s a reshus for all. “And they’ll say”, they’ll think, “that only courtyards are reshus hayachid”, that the courtyards are called reshus hayachid, “and it’s permitted to take out from the courtyards to fields and deserts”. Because it’s not hotza’ah a melachah, they’ll think that hotza’ah isn’t a melachah, and they’ll think that reshus hayachid is reshus harabim.

The point is further, he’s not saying that they won’t know that this is a sin. What he’s saying is, that they should remember after all, there are two things that people think makes a reshus hayachid and what the halacha says makes a reshus hayachid. What people think is that a place where there’s permission for all is a reshus harabim, a place where there’s no permission for all, let’s say a courtyard is a domain for the residents of the courtyard, but it’s private. It seems to people, and people understand that this is a reshus hayachid.

If, by the way, the halacha isn’t so. The halacha says that there’s no difference. The whole city has mechitzos, it’s the same thing as the courtyard essentially. The whole courtyard has one mechitzah, it’s one reshus hayachid. But people don’t understand it that way. People see after all that there’s a difference in the courtyard or in the city. It belongs to everyone, inside in the courtyard belongs only to private. It seems that in his mind this is called reshus hayachid and this reshus harabim. It seems that he carried from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim. He’ll think that he may also carry what is a true reshus hayachid to reshus harabim, which is a difference of mechitzos.

Do you understand what I’m saying? The problem of the people is that people reckon more with residents than the halacha. Ah, I think you’re saying very well. The lashon reshus hayachid, reshus harabim, someone who doesn’t know halacha, sounds like it has to do with who may move about there and who not. A reshus where the rabim may move about, a reshus where the yachid may move about. But in practice the halacha is that it has nothing to do with that, but it has to do with what kind of mechitzos it has, what kind of walls. But people won’t know. And Shlomo HaMelech apparently understood that the lashon, the expression of reshus harabim, is a problem.

And also the reality is so, that here more people move about. And he sees a person, he carries from a place of one person to a place of many people. So they prohibited carrying.

Shlomo’s Takanah – We Should Look at Residents as People Look

Therefore, he says, therefore he was metaken, he established, Shlomo HaMelech was metaken, he prohibited that every reshus hayachid that’s divided by residents, that every reshus hayachid that’s divided by the fact that there are other residents, and each one is attributed to his own domain, each one has his own little house inside the reshus hayachid, and there remains from it, and afterwards, besides the reshus hayachid in the courtyard, and there still remains a place that’s in the domain of all, the open part of the courtyard around the houses, is the place that’s in the domain of all and everyone’s hand is equal in it, everyone can use the place, like a courtyard to houses, the courtyard to the houses is considered that place where everyone’s hand is equal in it as if it’s reshus harabim. So the takanah of Shlomo was that we should look down at the place where everyone can move about there, and it looks like reshus harabim, we should actually give it a stringency of reshus harabim, we should think of that place as if reshus harabim.

And in that place that each and every one of the neighbors holds a portion for himself, Shlomo HaMelech decreed that it should definitely be reshus hayachid. That means, in actual truth inside the courtyard and the houses there’s no difference at all, both are reshus hayachid. But since people see after all a great difference between the houses and the courtyards, he made that we should actually give a halacha as people see it, that the house is a reshus hayachid, and we’re basically saying the courtyard is a… we should be stringent that it’s a reshus harabim. It’s a reshus harabim, and it will be prohibited to take out from the domain he divided for himself to the domain where everyone’s hand is equal in it.

He tells us very clearly that the problem is the residents, that people look at things according to the residents. And just as as we say there’s reshus hayachid and reshus harabim, they also shouldn’t take out from what looks like a reshus hayachid to reshus harabim. But each one should use the domain he divided for himself alone. The takanah of the original takanah, the takanah before the solution is, that each one may only use his own house, no one may carry out from the reshus hayachid to the reshus harabim, unless one comes up with something that should show that the courtyard is essentially a reshus hayachid. Until they all make an eruv, even though everything is reshus hayachid. By the way, everything is a reshus hayachid, and apparently we don’t need the “ye’arvu kulam”, but there was the decree that we should only be allowed with an eruv.

The Eruv’s Function – “We’re All Me’urav”

And what is this eruv?

And what is this eruv? How do all these people unite themselves? What is the eruv? Says the Rambam, “It is that they unite themselves with one food that they place before Shabbos.” That is to say, what does the one food do? What is the mechanism that happens with the food? The disagreement, he declared the disagreement, that is to say that we are all mixed together, we are all mixed, and we all eat, we are all one plate and we are all one food. It shouldn’t mean that only in the houses is each one comfortable with his people, and in the courtyard everyone is strangers, no, we all live in one unit.

Eruv Chatzeiros and Shituf Mevuos – The Act of Eruv, Measurements and Laws

Continuation: The Mechanism of Eruv – Creating Partnership

Speaker 1: Therefore, they have one food, and no one among them separates his domain from his fellow, no one has a separate domain, but just as our hand is equal in this place that belongs to all of us, just as we are all one in this place, just as we can all use this piece of courtyard, so too our hand is equal in every place where each one eats for himself, also essentially each one is also comfortable, and each one also has a hand in the other people’s domain, and we are all fit for one domain.

It’s interesting. People would have looked only at the houses. It’s interesting, yes. Seemingly the prohibition is that people should think that the courtyard is a public domain. They made it that the courtyard, they all eat together, and they are all partners. And because they are all partners in the courtyard, it’s obvious that no one has a separate private domain either. It’s both.

The problem is essentially this, that there is a distinction between the house and the courtyard. Through eating together, there is no distinction between the house and the courtyard. Everywhere each one can go. It nullifies the house. It nullifies, one becomes a partner, one mixes. Nullification we will soon see in the other entry.

And through this act, through making the eruv, through making the bread, what does one accomplish? They will not come to err, no one will err, and they will think in their minds that this is similar to that, private domain and public domain, he won’t think that it’s similar to private domain and public domain.

Two Types of Eruv: Eruv Chatzeiros and Shituf Mevuos

Speaker 1: And through this act, through making the eruv, there are two names. The eruv that is made in a courtyard with each other, the mixture that one mixes together through the bread, all the residents of the courtyard, this is called eruv chatzeiros. And the type of eruv that one makes in the alley, where all the courtyards become one part of the alley, or it’s one alley with another, also all the residents of the city, or when the city that is surrounded by a wall, what they can make an eruv, this is called shituf.

The same thing, shituf means one becomes all partners, and eruv means they are all mixed. Why did they make two names? Perhaps because in the alley one is not really mixed, but one is a partner. It could be that this is a lesser term. There is no difference at all, it’s only a difference in terminology, but I think perhaps this is a difference.

Speaker 2: Later one also calls it eruv, later one makes laws of eruv, yes.

Speaker 1: True, but in the Gemara he always calls it shituf. Why? I can think that it’s because of this, it’s not obvious that one mixes. Or he brings it through extension, and this is simple, one should do other laws with these two things. True, we will soon see that not all the laws of eruv and shitufin are the same, one has two words so one can easily speak about it.

The Wisdom of King Solomon: Prohibition with Permission

Speaker 1: So, there is the Rambam, with what does one make the eruv? It’s like this, good, now we have understood the reason, the main enactment of the eruv, what is its enactment? It’s the prohibition and the permission that come together.

I saw the Chasam Sofer says this, that this is why King Solomon was so wise, he didn’t make a prohibition, he made a prohibition with a permission, there is no such thing as a problem without a solution. Like washing hands, the hands are impure, but there is quickly a solution, one can wash them.

Speaker 2: True.

Speaker 1: Or like the rabbis who make a filter on the internet, you have internet with a filter. One knows that one shouldn’t at all, this is not “my son be wise and my heart will rejoice, even I.” How does it go? “My son be wise and my heart will rejoice, even I.” To make only prohibitions is not wisdom, to bring the solution together.

It has happened often, that when one says when Solomon enacted eruv, one doesn’t know if he means he made the question or the answer. The answer is he made both. Because it can perhaps be that just as one may not prohibit before one has the solution for it, before you have the permission.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: Ah, could be in King Solomon’s times one was rich, one had bread to share from everyone. Solomon’s bread.

Speaker 1: Ah, it says he had for thousands of people, yes? “Solomon’s table in its time.”

Speaker 2: Yes, he’s not going to say Solomon’s bread.

Speaker 1: Here it says with a yud, it doesn’t look like Solomon, but in my Rambam it says without a yud.

Law 3: With What Does One Make Eruv Chatzeiros – Whole Bread

Speaker 1: “One does not make eruv in courtyards”, now we are going to learn with what one makes the eruv, with which bread. Says the Rambam, “One does not make eruv in courtyards”, one doesn’t make eruv chatzeiros, “except with whole bread only”, only with a whole bread.

Says the Rambam, it has nothing to do with size. Even if it’s a large bread, but if it’s a broken bread, even “a loaf baked from a se’ah”, even a loaf that one needed for it a whole se’ah of flour, a heavy loaf, a large loaf, but “since it is sliced”, since it’s already cut, “one does not make eruv with it”.

But conversely, “but if it was whole”, if it’s whole, “even if it was small like an issar”, even if it’s small like a coin called an issar, “one makes eruv with it”. One can. The point is that it should be whole. Whole is something of importance.

Discussion: Why Must It Be Whole?

Speaker 1: What is the concept? Is there an explanation why it must be whole?

Speaker 2: A Jew must have wholeness.

Speaker 1: No, perhaps because when it’s sliced it’s already divided, so it’s “each one for himself”, yes? Not, each one has a piece from the bread, it’s already divided. Like in the courtyard it’s divided. Whole, everyone tears off a piece from the same challah, so the whole challah belongs to everyone, just as the whole courtyard belongs to everyone.

Speaker 2: I don’t know, maybe.

Law 3 (Continuation): Which Types of Bread

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, “And just as one makes eruv with grain bread”, just as one can make from bread from grain, like from wheat and barley, one can also make “with rice bread and lentil bread”, from beans, “but not with millet bread”, millet is an even weaker type of bean, “and from panic grass” one cannot make.

Speaker 2: One can still make a verse now.

Shituf Mevuos – With Which Foods

Speaker 1: Yes, so the question of what one makes an eruv depends on which eruv. Eruv chatzeiros is more complete than shituf mevuos. Eruv chatzeiros must be bread, but shituf…

Speaker 2: Yes?

Speaker 1: Yes, but shituf is with bread, with other foods. It’s interesting, because shituf seemingly is perhaps broader, there is more reason to think that one would err with alleys than with houses in courtyards. I don’t know, okay, further.

Says the Rambam, “With shituf”, that is with the bread that one must take from all the residents of the courtyards in the alley, one can use “either bread”, like with eruv chatzeiros, or shituf mevuos. Which food? Says the Rambam, “One can make shituf with any food”. All the residents of the courtyards in the alley can become partners, they can become one, with any food, except water or salt alone, water alone or salt alone is not called food.

Mushrooms? Such as mushrooms, and such types of growths that grow from the air, one does not make shituf with them because they are not considered foods, it’s not considered like food.

But eruv of water and salt, the two things that alone they are nothing, but together, when one makes a shituf with them, when one mixes them, then they become good for an eruv, and one makes shituf with this, because this way it becomes similar to brine, brine, or as one says it. We have already had several times this food, it’s something that one makes water and salt together with fish. So even if there isn’t the fish, but water and salt is already the beginning of a more important food, one can yes use.

Law 4: The Measure of Food for Shituf

Speaker 1: Further, now we are going to say how much is the measure? How large must the food be that one makes, so all should become partners with the food?

Says the Rambam, “And how much is the measure of food that one makes shituf with?” How much food must one have for the shituf? How much is the measure? Says the Rambam, the measure is “like a dried fig for each and every one of the residents of the alley or residents of the city”. The measure of how much it should be for each one is that it should be a dried fig. A measure of a dried fig for each and every one of the residents of the alley or residents of the city.

Says the Rambam, a dried fig is the minimum measure of eating, that one uses for Shabbos, and each one must be able to have one dried fig. This is like a measure of eighteen or less, if there are eighteen people, eighteen separate houses in the courtyard, or eighteen courtyards in the alley, or less.

But if there were more than eighteen, but if there are more than eighteen people, they were lenient. One doesn’t require that one should bring so much merchandise that there should be for each one twenty portions. Then the measure of two meals is enough. Then it’s enough that one brings, one makes a partnership on two meals, the measure of two meals, which are like eighteen dried figs, which are like six medium eggs. A meal it seems is a measure of three medium eggs, and one needs two meals, comes out eighteen. One caps it at eighteen. From eighteen people and higher it’s enough that there is food for eighteen people. It’s also enough, it already looks like a partnership, like everyone eats together from the same partnership, from the same bowl.

Even if thousands and myriads make shituf, even if there are very many who make shituf, tens of thousands, even if it’s thousands and myriads, the measure of eighteen is also enough. Once it’s eighteen, one doesn’t need more there.

Speaker 2: Very good.

Law 4 (Continuation): Measures for Different Foods

Speaker 1: Now we are going to learn details in the measure. That is, essentially the practical application for different foods, how much is the measure of two meals, which is essentially the measure that usually one will need to have for shituf mevuos of eighteen and further.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Any food that is eaten as it is, every food where the practice is that one eats it as it is, one eats the food alone, such as bread or types of grain, or other… it means other things that one makes mezonos, it means also things that one makes from grain but not bread, but I know, pretzels. And raw meat, raw meat, if they made shituf with it, if one made the bread or the types of grain or the meat be the food of partnership, their measure is food of two meals, two meals for eighteen people.

And anything that is a condiment, a thing that is accepted generally that it’s called a food that one eats in addition to bread, it’s a side dish, generally they dip their bread in it, their bread to eat with it, such as cooked wine, interesting, cooked wine that we learned is less important, one doesn’t use it for kiddush, what does one do with cooked wine? One drinks it with the bread. And roasted meat, roasted meat is a concept that one eats with the bread. And brine that we said earlier, the sea salt with fish and olives, and onion brine, the water brine from the onion, not the small onion but the large onion.

All these things are a condiment. Then one needs to have from this one needs to have much a smaller measure. One needs to have how much one needs to have bread

Measures of Eruv – Details of Laws for Condiments and Various Foods

Law – Measures of Condiments: Cooked Wine, Roasted Meat, etc.

Speaker 1: What does one do with cooked wine? One drinks it with the bread. Roasted meat, roasted meat, is something that one eats with the bread. Vinegar and brine that we said earlier, the sea and salt with fish and olives, and onion mothers, the mothers of the onion, not the small onion but the large onion. All these things are a condiment. Then one needs from this much a smaller measure. One needs to have how much one needs to have for two meals, that is salt water to dip two meals is less than a smaller measure enough to sustain two meals.

I think onion mothers means what we call onions, that is the, no, the bulbs of it. In general one can speak about onion leaves, an onion comes simply with leaves, we are accustomed not to eat the leaves at all, one eats really only the onion mothers, that is a condiment. And the onion leaves we will soon see other laws about it. Yes, further.

Law – Fresh Wine: Measure of Two Quarters for All

Speaker 1: And not like fresh wine, it was said that cooked wine is a condiment. What happens with fresh wine? Fresh wine is not a condiment, and one needs to have a measure of two quarters for all, one needs to have two quarters for everyone, also for everyone up to eighteen.

Discussion: Why Is Fresh Wine Only Two Quarters?

Speaker 1: Wine and beer, until now we have said rules, now one is going to see such a list of like twenty other foods how much they need, and all these measures will be essentially the measure of food of two meals, right? Because here one is going to bring things that are eaten as they are. Aha, right.

Wine and beer, it was also said that drinking is the same thing as eating, it is a type of eating for everyone, two meals can mean two meals of drinking. Wine and beer, two quarters, the measure of beer is two quarters. Sorry, nothing is chopped in the middle, so beer we learned two quarters, that is not for each person, for all is enough two quarters for up to eighteen people, and afterwards the measure remains. In short, two quarters is enough for two meals, basically. Because this is not something eaten as it is. No, it is yes.

Speaker 2: Is wine related to something eaten as it is?

Speaker 1: No, not particularly good. Fresh wine. He said cooked wine is indeed for eating with bread. Fresh wine its measure is two quarters for all. He goes back like bread.

Speaker 2: No, not two quarters for each person.

Speaker 1: For all means for everyone together.

Speaker 2: No, what does one need for all?

Speaker 1: For all for everyone together. So then it must be that this is enough.

So it comes out. It was written thus, but we say that their measure is like two meals. Ah, two meals, and he says that two quarters.

Speaker 2: Perhaps the measure of two meals is like six medium eggs. Perhaps fresh wine is simply because one is going to dilute it it will become more?

Speaker 1: Ah, fresh wine, because when one dilutes it it becomes… ah, makes sense. When one dilutes it it becomes… it becomes… ah, the point is… it must be… the measure we learned… the point is something else. It must be a measure of two meals. Let’s be clear, the moment you have a measure of two whole meals it doesn’t matter how much, the maximum measure, true? And each meal a person drinks only one cup of wine minimum, because that is enough to be called a meal. Therefore two quarters is enough.

Speaker 2: Ah, simple.

Speaker 1: Life and peace. Yes? Right? Yes, no, but earlier we learned that two quarters for a large crowd must be… is the measure six eggs.

Speaker 2: But what is the measure of quarters?

Speaker 1: Is two eggs. Two quarters. Wait, wait, if we’re talking about eggs. Quarters is for liquids, for drinking the measure is quarters, true? Yes, but we learned earlier that up to eighteen people there must be for each person a measure, a measure of a dried fig, and afterwards, once there is already a measure of two meals like eighteen dried figs like six medium eggs, then it’s enough. Well, now it’s a food for liquid, so two quarters is enough, or fresh wine.

Speaker 2: Six quarters, like six eggs?

Speaker 1: Six medium eggs was the measure of eighteen dried figs. Six medium eggs is the same measure as eighteen dried figs. Eighteen dried figs is for food.

Speaker 2: So two quarters is like eighteen dried figs?

Speaker 1: Ahh, you say. But what is the calculation? Why is drinking less? Because this is the measure of two meals. The measure of two meals is for one person, not for many people. One person, a dried fig is not a measure for a meal. A dried fig is just a minimum eating. A normal person who sits at a meal eats three eggs and one quarter wine. He doesn’t drink three quarters wine at a meal. He drinks one quarter wine. Therefore in total two quarters.

Law – Measures of Various Foods: Eggs, Pomegranates, Citron, Nuts

Speaker 1: Eggs is two, two eggs. And presumably even if they are raw eggs. What does this mean? Again, the other foods need to be like the measure of six eggs, but the eggs themselves don’t need to be six eggs, because one egg is enough for a meal.

Speaker 2: What is the meaning? What is the problem?

Speaker 1: One egg is enough for a meal for a person.

Speaker 2: Why did one make here discrimination between beans and eggs?

Chunk 4 Translation

Speaker 1: I don’t know what the simple meaning is. He previously stated a general rule: how much food? The measure is like eight dried figs. But now he’s telling us something different. A certain food.

Speaker 2: But he’s not talking here about leftan. He already said leftan.

Speaker 1: No, no, no. The list is not leftan.

Speaker 2: But what is leftan?

Speaker 1: One doesn’t eat eggs directly. This is something that one eats together with…

Speaker 2: The measure of leftan is enough for two meals. In short, now you find out the details of how much one eats for two meals from the list of things. But I don’t believe he’s talking here about leftan, because wine and oil he calculated for leftan. Raw wine that he’s calculating now, these are not the things he’s calculating here, they’re not leftan.

Speaker 1: No, no, no, no. This is not a contradiction. The list is simply details, specifics, which are built on the two previous general measures. There are things that one eats as food, where the measure is for two meals, you need to know how much is two meals of that food. There are things that are leftan, you need to know what the measure of leftan is for that type of food. And this section, this halacha, only tells us details of all these types of things, how much it is, each one according to what it is, which type of measure it requires.

Speaker 2: I think that all these things that he’s calculating here are not leftan. It’s food, and there’s a different measure.

Speaker 1: No, no, he’s simply not correct. It’s simply saying things that are plainly a mistake, not true. Nobody eats…

Speaker 2: But it was calculated that way.

Speaker 1: No, nobody eats a meal of pomegranates, one eats it… leftan, one eats it with the bread, dates are made for…

Speaker 2: All the things that are calculated here, these are things that one eats…

Speaker 1: No, not true, not true.

Speaker 2: One doesn’t let it be made. It’s calculated as leftan.

Speaker 1: It’s calculated as leftan, now he’s going to calculate not…

Speaker 2: Not true, not true, not true.

Speaker 1: A proof: he calculates before this with wine, cooked wine is leftan, raw wine is not leftan.

Speaker 2: I know what’s here, the things he’s calculating, the list is only details of things, not… It’s not… A person doesn’t eat a meal of pomegranates, he eats leftan, he eats it with the bread, do you see?

Speaker 1: It’s a doubt, I don’t understand what he’s trying.

Halacha – Continuation of the List: Pomegranates, Etrog, Nuts, Peaches, Vegetables

Speaker 1: Pomegranates – two. Etrog – one.

Five nuts – the measure of nuts is five. Peaches – five.

Vegetables – the measure is a litra for vegetables, whether raw or cooked, and what is cooked and not cooked – if it’s half-cooked, so that it’s fit for eating, which one can eat either when it’s well-cooked or when it’s not cooked at all.

Food of…

Food of spices – food is a measure, he’s going to say what the measure of food is.

Dates – the measure is like that. Dried figs – the measure is like that. Pressed figs – certain fruits, the measure is like that.

Gourds – is something a… is grass, something that we already had before, there’s animal food from it, there’s human food from it, it’s a handful.

Fresh beans – a handful.

Lettuce…

Also some kind of… grass.

Vegetable – is a litra. Turnips – they are included in vegetables, and one makes eruv with them – the vegetables whose measure is a litra of vegetables.

(Turnips is such a… turnip? I don’t know what kind of thing).

Halacha – Onion Leaves: Condition of Sprouting

Speaker 1: Onion leaves – ah, previously he said the… the bulbs of onions, now he’s talking about the onion leaves. One only makes eruv with them if they’ve sprouted – only if they’ve sprouted, if they’ve begun to grow, when the leaves have become long, everyone plants seeds from them – the leaves from them have become long, but less than that, a person doesn’t eat. If it hasn’t yet reached all of that and isn’t yet like that, it hasn’t yet begun to develop from it, it’s not called food.

Discussion: Is the List Leftan or Food in Itself?

Speaker 1: What does the Rambam say? “All these things are considered as leftan.” They are like leftan. They’re not things that one eats with bread, but for some reason they were given the measures like leftan. “Therefore these measures were given to them, and so too all similar things.”

Speaker 2: No, leftan means one does eat it with bread.

Speaker 1: I know what you want to try with bread.

The Rambam says here, “All these things are considered,” they’re not… leftan he calculated earlier, but as spices it gets a law like leftan, and they’re given the measure. “Therefore these measures were given to them and so too all similar things.”

Speaker 2: Leftan means things that aren’t eaten as they are raw.

Speaker 1: In general, leftan is originally a name for something, I don’t remember what, but the Gemara calls this anything that one eats together with bread. One eats it together with bread, nowadays one dips the bread into it. This means that it’s not the main part of the meal, it’s something that comes with the bread, like a side to the meal. That’s the meaning. In today’s times I don’t know who eats bread at the meal, but in the past a meal came with bread, and something came with it. And these things, says the Rambam, are like leftan.

And therefore there are all these measures, because the measures aren’t how much one eats alone, because one doesn’t eat onions alone. One eats it as part of the meal. All these measures are a whole list of details, essentially it’s all built on the principle of how much one uses for two meals, but the Sages stated precisely for all this list of things precisely how much one needs. And all similar things, you need to calculate yourself, and when it’s not stated, you need to weigh how much one uses for two meals, and that’s the halacha.

Halacha – Combining Foods for the Measure

Speaker 1: He says further, “And so all foods combine for the measure of the partnership.” The partnership can be with more than one food, it can be half of this measure and half of that measure.

He’s now going to calculate more measures. He calculated litra. He writes the halacha of Samaritans, I don’t understand precisely the inquiry. He says that this is only for eruv chatzeirot, for eruv techumin, for shitufei mevo’ot, one must give a measure for each person, a meal measure for each person. They don’t combine, one can’t combine from two foods for example. That’s the point, right? That’s the Raavad’s position, apparently. Okay.

Halacha – Explanation of Measurement Measures: Litra, Achila, Me’ah

Speaker 1: Ah, now if you want to know what all these numbers that we learned mean, the Rambam is going to calculate. A litra mentioned everywhere is the volume of two revi’iot. And achila, he says spices is like achila, what is achila? Half a revi’it. A maneh mentioned everywhere is one hundred dinars. How much is a dinar? Six me’ah. Sela, the Rambam remembered here to say another measure. Yes. Because a me’ah weighs six barleycorns.

Measures and Weights, and Laws of Eruv Chatzeirot

Measures and Weights (Continued)

Speaker 1: Okay. Ah, now, if you want to know what all these numbers that we learned mean, I’m going to remind you… and you want me to calculate.

A litra, mentioned everywhere, weighs two revi’iot. And achila, he says spices is like achila. What is achila? Half a revi’it.

A maneh, mentioned everywhere, is one hundred dinars. How much is a dinar? It’s six me’ah.

Sela, the Rambam remembered here to say the next measures. Yes. Because a maneh weighs six barleycorns. Because a sela is four dinars. Again, a maneh is 100 dinars. A dinar is six me’ah. A me’ah is sixteen barleycorns. And a sela must be in between. A sela is larger than a dinar, and smaller than a maneh. A sela is four dinars. Anyway, this is all Roman money.

How much is a revi’it, it holds wine or water. The measure of a revi’it is when it holds wine or water the weight of seventeen dinars, and half a dinar. Approximately. Roughly. That’s the measure of a revi’it.

It comes out that a litra comes out that a litra weighs fifty-five dinars. True. If a… this is all weight, right, because a coin you measure how much silver, or whatever is in it. So if a litra is two revi’iot, and a revi’it is 17.5 dinars, it comes out that a litra is 35 dinars. And that’s 2 revi’iot. And achila is a quarter. It’s half a revi’it. What is half a revi’it, it comes out? It weighs a dinar and half a revi’it.

You should know more numbers. The measure of a se’ah, everywhere, the measure is six kabin. And a kav, how much is a kav? Four login. And the Rambam already calculated it. I’m explaining, once he calculated this, how one measures a revi’it in its weight. Which means measuring a revi’it is seventeen and a half dinars. Approximately. Because the measure of volume and the measure of weight need to be discussed separately.

When you’re not sure, when you’re learning about kav, se’ah, log, all these things, says the Rambam, where does it say? In Hilchot Eruvin. I already said that I’ll say again why? Because I need to say enough things only once. Yes. Okay. Be well.

Halacha 7 – With Which Foods May One Make Eruv

Speaker 1: The first thing I need to know is how much food one needs to have for the… and now we’re going to learn which food is good enough, whether it’s fit for eating, whether one may eat it.

Says the Rambam thus: Food that is permitted for eating, food that is essentially permitted for eating, this is not non-kosher food, it’s not food that is forbidden, even though it is forbidden to this person making the eruv, even if for this particular person making the eruv it’s not kosher, and he’s going to explain the example of what he’s talking about, one may make eruv and partnership with it, the person can use this food for an eruv or make a partnership. How so? One makes partnership with wine of libation, here in the courtyard there’s someone who’s a nazir, or… he may not drink wine, other people may. Or an Israelite with terumah, this is even more extreme, even if other people, a kohen may eat it, but an Israelite may not. Even if there are other Israelites apparently in the courtyard, but it’s kosher for certain people, it doesn’t say there must be a kohen here.

Speaker 2: Yes, it says, we didn’t learn it.

Speaker 1: And so one who vowed from this food or swore not to eat it, and so too one who may not eat this food because he made a vow or an oath, one makes eruv and partnership with it, the person making the eruv or partnership can use this for eruvin and for partnership.

Why? Because anything that is fit for this person is fit for another, the law isn’t such food that one can become partners with it, it still makes the people become mixed in one food. Ah, if it’s food that is permitted for certain people.

Something Forbidden to All

Speaker 1: But something forbidden to all, such as tevel, even tevel of rabbinic law, even if it’s not tevel from the Torah, it’s tevel from rabbinic law, we already learned above, except for demai, not demai, because demai is different, we’ll see. So tevel means such a type of thing that only rabbinically one must give ma’aser and terumah. And so ma’aser rishon from which its terumah wasn’t taken, ma’aser rishon, from which the terumah wasn’t removed. And so properly, what means it was removed but not properly?

Speaker 2: Perhaps not in order?

Speaker 1: It could be that one must do it in order, but I don’t know what “properly” means. Ma’aser rishon from which its terumah wasn’t taken. Ah, he means that the terumah wasn’t taken. One gives ma’aser before terumah. Ah, not terumat ma’aser, that’s what he means. I don’t know why. Okay.

And so ma’aser sheni and hekdesh that weren’t redeemed according to halacha. It wasn’t redeemed according to halacha. What means it wasn’t redeemed with money or not according to the halacha? One doesn’t make eruv and partnership with them, because it’s forbidden to all people. Even if it’s only forbidden rabbinically, but in practice all people cannot use it. Ah, this is rabbinic. It’s, let’s say, rabbinically there’s a law that it must be Tyrian money, I don’t know what other laws. What did the rabbis have? Nevertheless, one doesn’t make eruv with it, because no one may eat from it.

Demai

Speaker 1: But one makes eruv and partnership with demai. Demai one may. Demai is also forbidden rabbinically, because it is fit for the poor. Demai is however fit for the poor. Therefore, as we discussed that something that is fit for certain people, one may make an eruv and partnership.

Ma’aser Sheni and Hekdesh Redeemed Without the Fifth

Speaker 1: And ma’aser sheni and hekdesh that were redeemed, that were redeemed, but the thing wasn’t done completely, because the fifth wasn’t given, there the law is that the fifth doesn’t prevent, because the fifth is a mitzvah but it doesn’t prevent, one may eat it even without the fifth. Therefore it’s still something that is fit for partnership and for eruv.

Ma’aser Sheni in Jerusalem

Speaker 1: And it continues, And one makes eruv with ma’aser sheni in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem one may make eruv with ma’aser sheni, because there it is fit for eating, because there it is fit for eating, but not in the borders, not in the borders. It’s not like for example terumah, because it’s fit for a kohen, because in the city it’s not fit for anyone.

Halacha 8 – How One Makes Eruv in Courtyards

Speaker 1: Okay, until now we learned with what one makes an eruv. Now we’re simply going to learn what one does, what one makes, what one does to make the eruv. The practical performance of the mitzvah.

Says the Rambam thus: How does one make eruv in courtyards? How does one make eruv chatzeirot? One collects one whole loaf from each and every house. One takes a whole loaf from every house.

Why does one need a whole one from every house? I don’t know. I know it doesn’t come out that one needs a whole one for each person, only if there are fewer than eighteen, which then one takes for a… right, but…

Speaker 2: No, later he’s going to say that one can acquire for all. You learned later that one can… later in chapter 168 in another halacha.

Speaker 1: Is eruv chatzeirot the law of eighteen?

Speaker 2: It hasn’t been stated until now. It was stated that eruv chatzeirot requires a whole loaf. Okay, eruv chatzeirot is easier. So later it will say that one can. It’s harder, this is more stringent. The whole law that we learned that one can have up to eighteen we only learned about shitufei mevo’ot. I haven’t seen that it says about eruv. There one was particular. The large vessel is only for residents of the alley. Eruv chatzeirot requires bread. He doesn’t say how much bread in halacha 8. He says here now. We only learned that it must be bread, and it must be a whole complete one, a whole loaf. And in chapter 168 it will say that one can give a loaf for all. But in the beginning he starts with the original that everyone gives at least a piece of bread. That’s called eruv, everyone mixes themselves in the same bowl, one mixes in.

Where One Places the Eruv

Speaker 1: How does one make eruv? One collects one whole loaf from each and every house. We learned it must be whole. True. Yes. And one places them all in one vessel in one house of the houses of the courtyard. One places all the loaves in one room of the houses of the courtyard. And it doesn’t have to be specifically in the house where one sleeps, even in the straw house or the cattle house or the storage house, that’s also good.

But, but this is when the house is part of the houses of the courtyard. But if one placed it in the gatehouse, if one placed it in a gatehouse, in the front, the hallway in front of the house, and even a gatehouse of an individual, even if it’s a gatehouse of an individual, or in a porch, or on a balcony, or in a house that doesn’t have four cubits by four cubits, on the porch or on the front of the house, or in a house that isn’t an important house, it is not an eruv. It must be specifically in a house.

The Blessing of the Eruv

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, When one collects the eruv the blessing is when one is collecting. Because the essence of eruv is, one takes together, one goes around on Friday, and one goes to all the houses, and one asks each person for a piece. So before this, apparently, one makes. The one who is collecting makes the blessing for all. Not that every person who gives bread says the blessing. No, the mitzvah is the collecting. When one takes it together, apparently, before doing it, before he begins collecting. Yes, he says the blessing “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of eruv.” Yes, it’s a rabbinic mitzvah, but even on a rabbinic mitzvah one makes “who sanctified us,” as we already learned.

“With this eruv it shall be permitted for all residents of the courtyard to take out and bring in from house to house on Shabbat.” This is when one is talking about eruv chatzeirot.

Why does one need to make this formula? I don’t know. Interesting, one must say it too? One must say it, yes. I think so. Did you shoot my heel or not? Okay.

A Minor Can Be the Collector

Speaker 1: The Rambam, a minor can also be the one who is the collector. “And a minor has,” he says it afterwards. You see here a blessing, you see here how there’s something tremendously serious. A minor can also do it. A minor can be the one who collects eruv chatzeirot.

Laws of Eruv Chatzeiros – Bnei Chaburah Who Were Gathered, Acquisition Through Another, and the Time of the Eruv

Law 11 (Continued) – Bnei Chaburah Who Were Gathered in a House

Speaker 2: And then should the minor make the blessing? Or perhaps there is a difficulty from collecting for the eruv, that everyone who gives to the eruv can… Why everyone? Can the minor make a blessing?

Speaker 1: The minor can make the blessing, of course. Okay. I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Why shouldn’t everyone make the blessing? Because everyone has a share in the mitzvah, the one who gives the bread.

Speaker 1: The mitzvah is not to give, the mitzvah is to collect!

Speaker 2: No, the whole thing is not a mitzvah. The mitzvah is what the Sages instituted. The mitzvah is rabbinic, the enactment is to collect. So the collector is the… One side is the collector, one gives and one takes. I mean, it’s not… Okay. I hear, it’s like the one who blesses, it’s in singular form.

The House Where the Eruv is Placed – Does Not Need to Give Bread

Speaker 1: “The house where the eruv is placed,” says the Rambam, there is such a law, the house where one places the eruv there, “does not need to give bread,” he benefits from what is placed in his domain.

Chazakah of the Place of the Eruv – For the Sake of Peace

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, “And a place where they are accustomed to place it, if there is a layman there, we do not change it.” If there is a house where they are accustomed to placing the eruv there, and there is a humble person, we don’t change it. Only for the sake of peace, only for the sake of peace, because the person in whose house it is placed saves, he doesn’t need to give bread.

It’s not about that. It has a law of honor, this is the law of chazakos of honors. The Rambam in Perush HaMishnayos says so, because they have from this a benefit that they don’t need to give, so it’s a mitzvah to take away once, it will now start costing him money to participate. There are incidents of stopping an honor. That’s how the Rambam understood, I don’t see the…

Eruv Chatzeiros and Shitufei Mevo’os – Chazakah of the Place of Placing the Eruv, Shitufei Mevo’os, and the Obligation to Make Eruv in Courtyards

Law: Chazakah of the Place of Placing the Eruv – For the Sake of Peace

Speaker 1:

If there is a house where they are accustomed to placing the eruv there, once it is so, we don’t change it. Why? For the sake of peace. For the sake of peace, because the person in whose house it is placed saves, he doesn’t need to give bread. He has a certain honor. This is the law of chazakos of honors.

The Rambam in Perush HaMishnayos says so, because they have from this a benefit that they don’t need to give, so if we take it away once it will now start costing him money, because he needs to give a share. This is in practice the halachic ruling. The Rambam understands, and I don’t see that the Rambam should change any honor. The law is the principle of chazakos of honors. Why don’t we change it? Not because it’s an acquisition or a right. If there is already an arrangement that works, we don’t change it. It’s apparently connected with the law of “they troubled him.” That since anyway because of this he deserves something from it, we shouldn’t change it.

Speaker 2:

True, you’re saying why we need to say this. Could be. Yes. But I think it’s a general law, that for the sake of peace is the reason why we don’t change certain agreements between people. Do you understand?

Discussion: Is This an Honor?

Speaker 1:

Yes, but here nothing is happening… The person in whose house it was placed, nothing more is happening at his house. It’s not simple that his house now becomes the place where everyone gathers. Everyone is participating in the food. Yes, his house is the place, the main place now, because he has an eruv.

Speaker 2:

No, I mean the point is that everyone is sharing in the same bread, and everyone can eat it anywhere. That means, everyone said that their house with the courtyard is like one thing.

Speaker 1:

True, you’re saying.

Speaker 2:

That everyone needs to come to his house to eat the bread? What did they advise among themselves?

Speaker 1:

No, they don’t come to his house to eat the bread. They only need a way that they shouldn’t be able to, that they shouldn’t come to any prohibition of carrying.

Speaker 2:

It was given over to him in the garden last night.

Speaker 1:

Yes, okay.

Speaker 2:

Why shouldn’t I be able to say, it should be given to him?

Speaker 1:

No, I wanted to say like this, that you’re saying like the Perush HaMishnayos explains, that’s the reason why we don’t change.

Speaker 2:

Yes, that’s the simple meaning.

Speaker 1:

True, could be. I don’t see that it’s an honor. You say it’s an honor, I don’t see why it’s an honor. It’s not simple that the house is now the place where the community gathers. It’s apparently that with this everyone shows that they are together and they can eat it anywhere.

Speaker 2:

Ah, that comes from what you’re actually saying well, from the whole list of tikkun ha’olam.

Speaker 1:

No difference, even when you say it’s a right, further, why can’t we change? Will we give him the right? Will we ask him, will we give him the right? He already has such a chazakah that he saves the money? And ah, and actually, on the contrary, if we take the Torah, will we give him the right to save his money? Perhaps not, perhaps we should change every week somewhere else?

For the sake of peace means to say that we don’t always go with the law, that means that according to strict law we would give him the right. On the contrary, according to what you’re saying it’s hard to understand, as if we would give him the right to save. Yesterday it was so, today I want to be the one. What’s the answer? For the sake of peace, leave it, we don’t need to change the arrangement.

Law: Shitufei Mevo’os – The Procedure

Speaker 1:

Okay, that’s the procedure of eruv chatzeiros. What do we do with shitufei mevo’os? By eruv chatzeiros we need a whole loaf, but shitufei mevo’os, what do we do? Yes? Yes, shitufei mevo’os is not necessarily bread and not necessarily whole. It was said, how do we make shituf in a mavoy? Like this, he collects food the size of a dried fig from each and every one, or less than a dried fig if there were many, if it’s a large community then we only need the measure of eighteen revi’ios, two meals or eighteen dried figs. Like this, and he places everything in one vessel, he places it in one vessel. Where does he place it? In one of the courtyards adjacent to the mavoy, or in one of the houses. Here even small houses are acceptable.

Ah, here there’s no problem. Earlier we made the houses partners in the courtyards, but now we’re making the courtyards partners in the mavoy. As long as it’s lying in a courtyard, it doesn’t matter to me in what kind of house that is in the courtyard it’s lying. It doesn’t even need to lie in the house, it can lie simply in the open courtyard. No, no, it can’t be open, we’ll soon see. In a mavoy, even small houses are also sufficient, meaning mirpesos. It must be like we discuss by eruv chatzeiros that it doesn’t help that it’s a jointly owned domain. But placing it in the air of the mavoy, simply in the air, is not good. It’s not a guarded place, they say. What is a place? It needs to be in a guarded place. Aha, when we place it in the courtyard, yes, we can place it simply in the courtyard, it doesn’t need to be in a specific place. But, but it needs to raise the vessel from the ground a tefach so that it will be noticeable, so we’ll recognize it, because otherwise we haven’t seen where it’s lying.

And he blesses on the mitzvah of eruv, and says with this shituf it shall be permitted for all the residents of the mavoy to take out and bring in from the courtyards to the mavoy, that’s the language. The shitufei mevo’os, yes, we make the same identical as eruv chatzeiros, only the text that fits for a mavoy.

Law: They Divided the Eruv or the Shituf

Speaker 1:

Says the Rambam further, they divided the eruv or the shituf, they divided the eruv chatzeiros or the shitufei mevo’os, even though both are in one house, even though both parts are still lying in one house, but they divided it, divided means they divided it into two vessels, different from what we learned the law that we place them all into one vessel, they divided it, even though both are in one house, there is no eruv. Because the whole point is that they are all mixed together, it’s lying in one vessel, and with this they all become like partners in the same plate. But if it’s lying in two, there is no eruv. But if there were extra vessels from the eruv and they were guarded from it until and they were hidden in one vessel, if it’s only in an extra vessel for a technical reason, it means that the bread still lies together, it’s just that there’s a screaming face lying in the vessel next to it.

Law: Shitufei Mevo’os and Eruv Chatzeiros – Do We Need Both?

Speaker 1:

Says the Rambam further, what happens if there is a mavoy, and in the mavoy there are several courtyards. So if we made shitufei mevo’os, we no longer need to make that in the courtyard itself we should make an extra one, because we already made that all the residents of the mavoy should become partners with the same bread. But no, the law is we need to make eruv in the courtyards, we need to make an extra eruv chatzeiros. Why? Here there’s already a new innovation. We already discussed that the reason why we need to make an eruv is so that people shouldn’t look like they’re permitted to carry from a private domain to a public domain. So, here all day we already made in the mavoy a shituf, do we still need to make an extra eruv in the courtyard? Why? So that the children should not forget the law of eruv. The children shouldn’t forget the law of eruv. Why? Because the children don’t recognize the action of the mavoy. You’ll have a courtyard, in the courtyard there are several houses, in the courtyard the children play around, the children know what goes on in the courtyard. But mavoy is already the larger street, where small children don’t go so often, so the children don’t know what goes on in the mavoy. They only see in the courtyard that one may carry from what they view as the private domain, the house, to what they view as the public domain, the courtyard. Therefore, it comes out, the whole mitzvah of eruv is indeed so that we shouldn’t make a mistake, so we added here the stringency that so we shouldn’t make a mistake even for the children, even those who…

Indeed actually we would have already fulfilled with the method, because this is for the adults, those who keep up with what’s going on. Children…

Discussion: Why Don’t Children Recognize in the Mavoy?

Speaker 2:

But… ah, because the children don’t recognize, because only one from the courtyard needs to give for the mavoy, not every house from the courtyard. When every house would give…

Speaker 1:

All the people of the mavoy need to give, means that each one from the mavoy needs to give? Or from each mavoy one courtyard needs to give?

Speaker 2:

No, all the people need to give.

Speaker 1:

But the children keep up with that someone came to take from the house?

Speaker 2:

No, they only know what goes on in the mavoy, they only know what goes on in the courtyard. Look, the event of it wasn’t in the mavoy.

The Rambam’s Distinction: Shituf Mevo’os with Bread

Speaker 1:

Let’s complete the whole law. Four, and if they made shituf in the mavoy with bread we rely on it. Ah, so, let’s reconsider. And if… and if… So, what he’s saying that when we made the mavoy we need to additionally make the eruv is when we don’t use bread, when we use other foods. But if we use bread, then we don’t need to make an extra eruv of the courtyards, because the children don’t recognize bread. When we make a mavoy, a shituf mevo’os with bread, then the children do keep up with it.

Speaker 2:

Ah, good. So, what we learned that the children don’t recognize in the mavoy means to say, this is already too complicated, we put in a little bit of a little bit of coarser things, it’s very little, it’s not such a big meal like the eruv chatzeiros, therefore the children don’t notice it. But if specifically, there is more of a community, shituf mevo’os, we don’t need bread. If we do make bread, then the children do know, they made the same thing. They know on the contrary, the children don’t know any difference between mavoy and courtyard, they know we made an eruv, we took bread we placed it somewhere, and they know that they made an eruv. So it seems that perhaps the problem why the children don’t recognize in the mavoy has to do with the fact that the mavoy is lighter, not only that it’s further. It could also be, but do you understand what I’m saying?

Speaker 1:

No.

Speaker 2:

You don’t understand?

You explained that the children don’t know what goes on in the mavoy because they don’t play there, but you see that when one makes it with bread they do know. So it seems the thing they don’t know, because a shituf mevo’os doesn’t need bread, it’s less noticeable. The children don’t understand what a glass of brandy means there that they brought the salt water, they don’t see that. At least we need to make an eruv that we make with bread, that’s the obligation. But if we already made with the mavoy also with bread, they do see. Although it’s far. The problem is not you think because it’s far, so it seems.

Speaker 1:

He says that when we make with other things that can last a longer time, we don’t need to change. But bread, once the bread is no longer fresh we need to collect new bread, the children keep up with it. It’s interesting indeed, what it will look like if one makes with an apple, or as we calculated earlier, will we indeed also need to. The point is then, if one makes with something that we need to collect again every period of time, because every time when Shabbos comes there needs to be… fit to eat from the from the partner.

Speaker 2:

But that’s not stated here. It’s not stated that the result is something that is preserved, and it’s also not clearly stated that the eruv chatzeiros we need to make new bread every week. Both need… The law assumes as if we’re going to make both every week. The language is that we collect yes? Erev Shabbos. And he didn’t learn at all in the Rambam that we may leave over from one Shabbos to the next.

Speaker 1:

It depends, means, it doesn’t say bread. If we go every erev Shabbos, it’s hard to say why shouldn’t the children keep up with it? It goes every week, the children aren’t standing a little big big, that not each one even needs to give. It’s enough two meals, and it’s a small thing, bread they understand, they recognize bread. That’s how it’s stated in the Rambam the law.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

Nu.

Speaker 2:

You have a portion of bread that he understands, and some salt water he doesn’t understand.

Speaker 1:

Nu nu.

Law: Bnei Chaburah Who Were Gathered

Speaker 1:

Further. His friend places a partnership with him in the house. This is something that happens when people, bnei chaburah, usually one goes around and collects bread from each one erev Shabbos, yes? Right. Here there is a new case so to speak. Bnei chaburah sitting gathered in a house, they sat together in a house and had a gathering.

Laws of Eruv Chatzeiros – Bnei Chaburah Who Were Gathered, Acquisition Through Another, and the Time of the Eruv

Law 11 (Continued) – Bnei Chaburah Who Were Gathered in a House

Speaker 1: You have a distinction in bread, that I understand, and some salt water, I don’t understand.

Nu nu. Further, bnei chaburah who were gathered in a house, yes? What is the thing? What happens? People, bnei chaburah, usually we collect bread from each one erev Shabbos, yes? This is a new case. Bnei chaburah who were gathered in a house, they sat together in a house and had a gathering, and the day became sanctified upon them, it became Shabbos. Then we don’t need to go make an actual eruv collection, rather the bread that is on the table we rely on it for eruv chatzeiros.

What are we talking about here? The bnei chaburah are residents of the courtyard, each one goes to his house afterwards? Right, but since they are eating together, and when it became Shabbos, when it became sanctification of the day, they were holding in the middle of truly being partners in the same bread, when they were all sitting and gathered in that house. And presumably he doesn’t mean specifically bread on the table, but the food that is lying there. Eruv chatzeiros needs to have bread, and this we’re going to soon see regarding shituf. Now he’s talking about eruv chatzeiros. Okay, bread that… But I say, perhaps in this case it’s not specifically, the point is that they are actually partners in the food. There’s a distinction, if eruv chatzeiros needs bread, but here there needs to be a whole loaf on the table, or perhaps there is the law of wholeness. The bread that is on the table we rely on it for eruv chatzeiros.

Distinction Between Eruv Chatzeiros and Shitufei Mevo’os Regarding Place of Placement

And if they wanted to rely on it for shituf, if they want to use this not only for eruv chatzeiros, but they want to use this for shitufei mevo’os, we rely even though they are gathered in the courtyard. That means, they are in one courtyard. Are there people from more than one courtyard here? Perhaps all the residents of the mavoy are now sitting in this house, in this courtyard. So the term bnei chaburah means everyone who lives in that courtyard or in that mavoy? I don’t know. Certainly, they already live there, and not today is already the time.

Laws of Eruv — Conclusion of Chapter 1: Laws Regarding Fitness from Before Sundown

Perhaps the answer is that as he brings that an eruv must be in a house, it cannot be in a courtyard. But a shituf mevo’os (partnership of alleyways) can indeed be even in one of the courtyards, do you understand why? If they are dining in the courtyard, eruv chatzeiros doesn’t work for them, because eruv chatzeiros must be placed in a house. Is what I’m saying correct? But it’s already in a house. No. Ah, if they are dining in the house, that’s very good, that’s very simple. If they are dining in the house, they can even make an eruv chatzeiros. But for shituf mevo’os one can even make it in the courtyard, because that’s the law of shituf mevo’os. But then one might indeed need to make a separate eruv chatzeiros, the eruv chatzeiros won’t help, because eruv chatzeiros cannot be placed in a courtyard. Very good.

Law Regarding Acquisition – One Person Acquires for All the Residents of the Courtyard/Alleyway

Until now we have learned the normal way where each person gives a piece of bread, or by the group where something belonged to each person, the bread together. Not clear. Yes. But here it goes… it’s interesting, because until now it was simple, here comes a large community and it changes various laws that we’ve already learned. What does it change? That one doesn’t need to go collect from each individual. But one does need to have it be’dieved perhaps. It doesn’t say, it could be that it’s only be’dieved the whole thing.

One of the residents of the courtyard takes one loaf and says “This is for all the residents of the courtyard”, and he acquires it for all the residents of the courtyard. Or, when speaking of an alleyway, he takes food for two meals, because for an alleyway one needs specifically bread, he takes food for two meals and says “This is for all the residents of the alleyway”. And one doesn’t need to collect from each and every one, one doesn’t need to go separately to take from each person, with the bread one fulfills for everyone. That means, earlier we said that one acquires for everyone, the community, everyone belongs to the bread, he says, one simply purchases in the same amount, now each person has bread in his own home. But one must acquire it for him through another person. That means, one acquires it for them, this is indeed a principle of acquisition, right? An acquisition cannot be made when you hold it yourself, you need to give it to a second person who should acquire it for them, who should acquire it for all the residents of the courtyard.

Why One Needs “Through Another Person”

Again, what does it mean, why can’t he say “This is for all the residents of the courtyard”? He cannot, the law of acquisition is “through another person”. You need to give it to someone who acquires on behalf of all the people. You cannot transfer ownership yourself, the words don’t speak enough, there must be some transfer.

Who Can Be the “Other Person” – His Adult Household Members

The Rambam says, the “through another person” and one doesn’t necessarily use an important adult? There are those who say that the rabbis said that his adult household members, he can give it to his adult household members and tell them to acquire for all the people of the courtyard, they should acquire for all the people of the courtyard, because the Hebrew slave, because his wife. But not for his minor household members, who don’t have understanding, that they should acquire, because the minor slaves and maidservants, the rabbis said that their hand is like his hand, and we’ll explain why. It is taught, that their hand is like his hand. When they acquire something, it is like his hand, they acquire for their father, for the householder. They don’t have their own authority.

Question Regarding His Wife

Interestingly, his wife also has the law that what she acquires he acquires, but he gives her to acquire, so she acquires for all other people. But it’s worth thinking about this, about his wife that you bring this.

It appears regarding the law, in any case, one can acquire for a woman without her husband if one really wants to. A woman’s findings, the husband has no authority over them, so the person himself can also, that a woman’s findings he has no authority over them. But she also has authority in the courtyard, she is a part that acquires for that one. She perhaps doesn’t need to, because it’s her portion, not any portion.

Minor Maidservant – A Minor Acquires for Others in a Rabbinic Matter

Indeed, he may acquire through his maidservant even though she is a minor. What we discussed that his minor household members don’t help, his minor household members don’t help because it’s his, but a maidservant who isn’t his, his maidservant may even be a minor. Why? A minor acquires for others in a rabbinic matter. When speaking of an acquisition regarding Torah law, a minor cannot acquire for others. For himself he cannot, but for others he cannot acquire, yes, one must say acquire, to acquire. But for rabbinic law, the rabbis allow a minor to be the one who acquires for others. Therefore, since an eruv is only rabbinic, one can even use a minor, just not his minor, because his minor is a different problem of his hand being like his hand. It should be a minor maidservant he can.

Speaker 2: As an acquisition one can use a minor maidservant? It’s explicitly stated in the laws of theft that one is stealing people’s minds. If someone acquires something through his minor maidservant, is that from the Torah?

Speaker 1: His Hebrew maidservant is not his hand like his hand, she has her own authority. Right, but she is a minor, so, what’s the problem? A minor can acquire for himself, but he said for others it becomes one not for thirteen. In rabbinic matters you can rely on a minor who acquires for other people.

Must One Inform the Residents of the Courtyard

Yes, and one must inform the residents of the courtyard, he says here, in the case where one gives bread and acquires for all the residents of the courtyard or alleyway, he must inform them. It depends on informing them that they can carry in the courtyard, or that they received a portion in the bread. Perhaps even before that, even before the practical matter that comes that they can carry. It’s about the first thing that they have a right in the bread, it’s just said, there is a law here, if we want to ask about it since you have a right there is indeed a principle that one may act on behalf of a person in his absence. Yes.

Law Regarding the Time of the Eruv – When Does One Make the Eruv

Okay now we’re going to learn when one must make the eruv. What does it mean that one must make it on erev Shabbos and it must be while it’s still day, twilight and such, the eruv. One doesn’t need with the sages from giving a gift, must one inform? He will tell them that they can carry in order, but one doesn’t need with the acquisition. Yes. I say, now regarding informing you, see. Yes. Yes. It’s recognition of the good. The Rebbe also, that this isn’t really a gift that goes down from that, except for the law that he goes to be able to carry. Yes. He already knows that there’s someone who acquires every week for the community. Okay, I already know this. Okay, that’s a different thing. We need to say, write that they may carry. Not that.

Further, when does one make the eruv or the partnership? One might have said, one can indeed do it on Shabbos too, seemingly. Yes. Everyone becomes partners with the bread. No, not so. One makes an eruv and partnerships not on Shabbos. Only while it’s still day. These are before Shabbos. But… during twilight one may… He doesn’t say, while it’s still day I don’t mean exactly, while it’s still day but. Even, one makes eruv chatzeiros and partnerships, that also during twilight, even though it’s doubtful whether it’s day or night. Seemingly this is a reasoning that the rabbis innovate.

But the point is because it’s like eruv techumin, that his mind is there, so this must be during twilight, when Shabbos enters.

Law That the Eruv Must Be Fit to Eat During Twilight

It must always be that the eruv or partnership is ready, it must be ready, and possible to eat it all during twilight. It must be something that one can eat the entire twilight, it must be fit to eat. Therefore, if a wall fell on it, if a wall fell on it, or it was lost or burned, or it was lost or burned, or if it was terumah and became impure, or that one did as the law we learned earlier, that one can also make an eruv with terumah, and it became impure, which now is invalid.

This means to say possible to eat it, right? That what was lost, or what is here also possible to eat it, but it became forbidden to eat. Then it’s so, while it’s still day, if it was already burned, it was already lost before it became Shabbos, it is not an eruv, because when it became Shabbos he didn’t have his mind there. After dark, if it was lost when it already became dark, this is an eruv, meaning it is indeed an eruv. Because when it was twilight his mind was there, he knew that he was a partner in the dwelling.

And if it’s doubtful when it was lost, whether it was before Shabbos or on Shabbos, this is an eruv, because a doubtful eruv is valid. A doubtful eruv is always valid. I’ll go further because it’s rabbinic seemingly.

Limitation of “A Doubtful Eruv is Valid” – Not with a Doubt of Torah Prohibition

So, one learns here that a Jew lives in a city where half the city says there’s an eruv, and half the city says there’s no eruv, he can carry because a doubtful eruv is valid, no? It’s not simple. Let’s be clear. Here a doubtful eruv means a doubt whether it became invalid during twilight.

The law follows the lenient opinion regarding eruv, this applies to eruv chatzeiros, but the dispute about whether one can make an eruv is not the question whether there’s an eruv, the question is whether there’s a Torah prohibition. Then it’s the opposite, seemingly one must be stringent, if there’s a serious side that it’s a Torah prohibition, then the opposite, a Torah doubt is stringent, true?

The law follows the lenient opinion regarding eruv will always mean when there’s no place where there’s a Torah prohibition. Eruv means the enactment that we’ve now learned in this chapter. Eruv means then when by Torah law one may carry. The rabbis don’t allow it, and they allow it with, they say that one needs an eruv. The reason is because even if you have a doubt whether it’s a private domain, there is indeed a doubt in the laws of eruvin, a doubt in the laws of Shabbos. You need to know what the law is generally, when you have a doubt whether something is Torah law, there is a dispute among the authorities, I don’t know if this is a Torah doubt or a rabbinic doubt. That’s a different question.

Anyway, it doesn’t come in here. Yes, they gave an eruv.

Laws of Eruv — Conclusion of Chapter 1: Laws Regarding Fitness from Before Sundown

Law 11 (Continued) — They Placed the Eruv in a Tower and It Was Locked and the Key Was Lost

Speaker 1: Eruv means the enactment that we’ve now learned in this chapter. Eruv means then when by the authority one may carry, but the rabbis don’t allow it, and they allow it by saying that one needs an eruv. This is certain. If there’s a doubt about the domains, it’s not a doubt in the law of eruv, it’s a doubt in the law of domains. One needs to know what the law is generally when there’s a doubt whether something is Torah law, or a dispute among the authorities. I don’t know if this is called a Torah doubt or a rabbinic doubt. That’s a different question. Anyway, it doesn’t come in here.

Yes. Further, the continuation of the question is that it must be ready during twilight, right? Yes. Another case. They placed the eruv or partnership in a tower, one placed it in a tower. A tower usually doesn’t mean a tower, a building, it means a closet. And it was locked, it became locked. And the key was lost before dark, the key was lost before Shabbos. This is such that it’s impossible for him to take out the eruv, unless he does work during twilight. If one won’t be able to use the eruv, won’t be able to take it out from the locked lock, unless he does work during twilight, only if one must do work, one must do destructive work there to break the door in order to take it out, because rabbinic work one may do during twilight when needed. Ah, okay. This is like it was lost and it is not an eruv. Then one looks at the thing as if it was lost, and it’s not an eruv. They may not eat. This is indeed clear, but it’s locked and one must break it, one doesn’t have the key.

Speaker 2: It’s very interesting, because the key is lying here somewhere. One must go search for the key. Exactly how long it takes to find it, do you understand what I’m asking?

Speaker 1: Okay, we’re talking if we mean that it’s lost. Lost is it was burned.

Speaker 2: Ah, lost is it was lost, and you don’t see it exactly.

Speaker 1: Here we mean like his eruv was lost earlier, yes, it’s lost.

Speaker 2: Ah, I agree. That means, if one can break it in a destructive manner, for example, true, that’s not work, but one must do destructive work, that’s only a rabbinic doubt, only rabbinic work that one may do on erev Shabbos.

He Separated Ma’aser Terumah or Terumah Gedolah Conditionally — Proof That It Must Be Fit from Before Sundown

Speaker 1: He separated ma’aser terumah or terumah gedolah, if a person separated ma’aser terumah, that means he had ma’aser and he separated from it ma’aser terumah, or terumah gedolah, and made a condition on it that it should not be terumah until dark, he made a condition that the terumah should take effect when it becomes Shabbos. One sees indeed that one can do this, it’s indeed, we learned that one may not separate terumah on Shabbos, but one can indeed separate terumah on erev Shabbos and make such a condition. The problem is the taking effect. But in such a case, with ma’aser, which one cannot do with an eruv, for it’s still tevel all during twilight, because he made the condition that it should only become kosher at night. So during twilight it’s still tevel. And this is a proof, “it must be fit from before sundown”.

Speaker 2: Interestingly, it’s exactly the moment that it becomes Shabbos it’s already kosher, because fine, the condition says that when it becomes dark it becomes kosher. But it must be fit before Shabbos.

Speaker 1: And here we also see that twilight is an authority unto itself. If it’s a doubt, it would still have been… ah, before that he says “from before sundown”. It appears that twilight must have its own sanctity.

Speaker 2: But the law of eruv is not that on Shabbos it should be, but when it becomes Shabbos. When does it become Shabbos? Before Shabbos. You ask the question, when does this become? This is the time of becoming. That means twilight, this is the time of becoming.

Speaker 1: It’s indeed a law that it becomes Shabbos, because then, every erev Shabbos much understanding comes down to the world, each person divides where he lives, yes, eruv techumin and eruv chatzeiros, and many more laws that are dependent on muktzeh, yes, twilight.

Conclusion of Chapter 1

Until here we have learned Chapter 1, the main laws of eruv chatzeiros and shituf mevo’os.

Laws of Eruvin Chapter 2 – Nullification of Domain

Introduction: Review of Chapter 1 and Introduction to the Chapter

Good, we are learning Laws of Eruvin Chapter 2.

Good, we are learning Rambam Laws of Eruvin, the second chapter of Laws of Eruvin, Chapter 2. In the previous chapter we learned what the mitzvah of Laws of Eruvin is, what eruvin is. We learned that essentially one may carry in the courtyard or in the mavoi, because the partitions make it a reshut hayachid (private domain). But since people don’t see it as a reshut hayachid, because people think that yachid, reshut hayachid, reshut harabim (public domain), people don’t know that it has to do with partitions, rather they look at it as where the rabim (many) live is rabim, and where the yachid (individual) lives… if he looks at it that way, that in a courtyard there is also reshut hayachid and reshut harabim, that is to say the reshut hayachid is the house where people live, and the reshut harabim is the shared space, the courtyard, or also in a mavoi.

The Sages didn’t want people to think that way, rather they would forget the entire law of hotza’ah (carrying out), and hotza’ah we know is a very important thing to the Sages, they made so many laws about hotza’ah. So they made a law that one must do something that shows that the entire courtyard is truly one domain, or the entire mavoi is truly one domain. How does one show this? Through the fact that everyone is partners together in one meal. There is a bread in which they are all partners. This we learned in the previous chapter, various laws of how the bread works, which bread is suitable, I mean when one needs bread and when one can use other foods, and so on.

In this chapter we are going to learn what happens when it doesn’t work. There is someone in the courtyard who doesn’t want to, or he can’t, for some reason he doesn’t want to become part of the… the entire group becomes a chasidic fellowship that are partners in a loaf and eat together, and he doesn’t want to. What does one do in such a case? I mean usually it happens by accident, but sometimes it happens deliberately. Anyway, what we are going to learn is that there are two solutions, there are certain solutions that one can do. This can be done for the Jews on Shabbat, I mean, right? One can do, besides the solution of the loaf, which is the enactment of King Solomon, the mitzvah, there are solutions that one can do.

And let us make a note right away, that seemingly, as we learned earlier, one can also be mezakeh (transfer ownership), one person can be mezakeh for everyone. If one person is mezakeh for everyone, seemingly there is no problem, because he is mezakeh even shelo befanav (not in their presence). But most likely they didn’t speak of such a method, it seems that the zekhiyah (acquisition) wasn’t a common thing, it was actually that each person gives a loaf. What happens when someone didn’t give a loaf? So seemingly it can’t become a reshut hayachid. It’s true, solved, most people have already made it so that their house and the courtyard are one, they don’t necessarily live in their own house, rather everyone lives in the same courtyard. But there is one person who is preventing all of them, one who makes his house a reshut hayachid, consequently automatically the courtyard around becomes like a reshut harabim, it already has the concern of eruvin.

Law 1 – A Courtyard Where Everyone Made an Eruv Except One of Them

The Rambam’s Words

The Rambam says as follows: A courtyard where everyone made an eruv, everyone mixed together with the eruv, except one of them who did not make an eruv with them, one person didn’t. Whether deliberately or accidentally, he forgot to send in his little loaf. This person prohibits them, the person prohibits the other members of the courtyard, it becomes a big problem, he prohibits all of them from taking out from their houses to the courtyard, they all may not carry out from their house to the courtyard, because it remains that the courtyard is a shared place for all of them, including for the one who forgot, and the houses are separate. And from the courtyard to the houses.

Nullification of His Courtyard Domain Only

So what can one do? The Rambam says as follows: If this one who did not make an eruv nullified for them the domain of his courtyard only, if the person didn’t make the eruv, so he went and he nullified the domain of his courtyard. He says he is nullifying the right, so to speak, that he has in the courtyard. The courtyard we learned earlier is a shared place for all of them. He says, the right that I have here in the courtyard I am nullifying. He is nullifying it to them, he gives it to them. So they are all now like one household, they are all partners in one loaf. The courtyard remains like an area that belongs to one group of people, which is one group of yachid. One family, and he is batel (nullified), he has no connection to the courtyard, he remains in the courtyard further as if he is a reshut hayachid, that’s fine. These are permitted, they may all carry to take out from their houses to the courtyard, from the courtyard to their houses. But to his house it is forbidden, to his house they may not carry, because his house remains intact. All the others nullified their house to the courtyard, and the courtyard became their partnership. He was not me’arev (made an eruv), he only was mevatel (nullified).**

The Difference Between Mevatel and Me’arev

Mevatel means that he takes away their separateness, their individuality. Me’arev goes both ways. Yes, yes. But mevatel goes only one way. It’s not the same thing. The point is that each person in the courtyard has two domains, he has his house that belongs to him, and also the courtyard, his portion in the courtyard. If he nullified his portion in the courtyard, then the courtyard becomes good for everyone, but to his house no one may carry, not him and not anyone, because his house is still separate.

Nullification of His House Domain and His Courtyard Domain

But if he nullified for them the domain of his house and the domain of his courtyard, if he nullified everything, he said my house and my courtyard are batel, then his house and his courtyard become like the courtyard, which the courtyard belongs to all the other people who were not meshtatef (participated) in the loaf, but were me’arev, all of them are permitted, everyone may carry in, he may also carry, because it’s not his private property.**

They are permitted who did not make an eruv, and behold he nullified for them the domain of his house and courtyard, they may carry everywhere, including in his courtyard, because among themselves they are all me’arev, and he nullified his house, because his house now belongs to them. And behold he nullified for them the domain of his house and his courtyard, he nullified the domain, the separate domain of his house and his courtyard. Consequently, what is now the domain? To whom does his house and courtyard now belong? To all of them, to the rabim, to the members of the courtyard. And even he is permitted, but he may also carry from his house to the courtyard. Why? Because he nullified it, consequently he has no domain, he has no separate domain. And what is he? And behold he is like a guest with them, he is like someone who is a guest at the people of the members of the courtyard. He is not a partner with them, because he didn’t give a loaf, but what happens, what about someone who comes into the courtyard, he doesn’t have his own house in the courtyard, he is only a guest of the members of the courtyard, and the rule is an oreakh (guest) does not prohibit, he becomes an oreakh.**

Plain Nullification of Domain – Minimum Interpretation

So now we learned that there are two types of domains that each person has, and one can nullify one or both. This we know, this is normal. If nullification of domain is plain, someone nullifies his domain, he doesn’t say clearly which domain, because he has the domain of his house, his private domain, and he has the partnership domain in the courtyard. We are told that when someone nullifies domain plainly, his courtyard domain is nullified. Perhaps, we minimize. As if, we don’t put more meaning into his words, we say he only nullified the thing that is easier to nullify, the domain that he has in the courtyard, but the domain of his house is not nullified.

This is the minimum. Because normally a person is easier to nullify his domain in the courtyard than to nullify his house, his house he won’t give away, his domain in the courtyard, okay.

Law Regarding Nullification to Each and Every One Explicitly

The Rambam’s Words

The Rambam, when nullifying domain to the members of the courtyard, someone who does this and he nullifies his domain to the members of the courtyard, he must nullify to each and every one explicitly. And he says my domain is nullified to you and to you and to you. And it’s not simple that he can say I am nullifying my domain to everyone, because who is everyone? There is no everyone. He cannot say to all the members of the courtyard. He must nullify separately, yes, separately to each individual.

Discussion: Why Not Like Zekhiyah?

Why? So it says in the Rambam. Right, but why shouldn’t it help when he says I am nullifying to the members of the courtyard? Because there is no such thing as members of the courtyard. Exactly, nullification is not the same thing as eruv. Nullification means as if, I don’t know what he means, let’s say, as if hefker (ownerless), as if he is makneh (transfers) his portion to the other people. One cannot be makneh to a group of people, one can only be makneh to each individual separately.

So one follows this reasoning. What is difficult to understand? I can also say, I don’t know the reason. It’s yes, being mezakeh one can do for everyone. A person can take a loaf and say – it’s not for everyone, for each one a piece. One can be makneh so that the ten people should acquire it. And here it says that one must say it explicitly. I don’t know if it’s a law in kinyan (acquisition), or if it’s a law in eruv. It’s bitul (nullification), bitul is not kinyan. Bitul is not kinyan and not eruv. It’s a new thing, which is a difficult thing. People don’t do it together. This is seen here.

The Nature of Nullification of Domain

Nullification is not that I am nullifying my domain, that I don’t have any domain. It’s not hefker. It’s not that I am nullifying my domain. Nullification means nullification to… Nullification is he is nullifying to someone. Nullification the language is directional. You are nullifying your domain, I have and I am nullifying. Both have a portion on what they stand. Nullification to them. Always nullification to them. There is no such thing as nullification about them. Always nullification is nullification to them. Why? It goes only one way. It’s not that he becomes batel to him. He becomes batel to them. And the reason why he may carry is only because he becomes a guest, he becomes out. He doesn’t become like, he becomes included with them. He doesn’t become included. It’s nullification is as if he is submitting, I don’t know, he gives his domain to them.

So, it’s a very serious thing. You see that people don’t want to nullify their domain. It’s not a simple thing. They won’t make a partnership for a minute so that one should be able to carry on Shabbat. I don’t know. But that’s the idea as if, that one takes it very seriously. I don’t understand this, but…

Law Regarding an Heir – Nullification of Domain on Shabbat

The Rambam’s Words

Okay, so the Rambam learns. But an heir, someone just inherited a house, nullifying domain, can he nullify a domain even if his testator died on Shabbat? The father died on Shabbat, and he inherited on Shabbat. Can he still then… ah, so you see here that one nullifies and it helps on Shabbat? Exactly. No, I’m going to tell you clearly now. Both saw it yes, because he forgot, that’s the whole problem, he forgot, so he saw it yes. Nullification is, one of the points of nullification is that this can be done on Shabbat. It’s not an eruv which can only be done on erev Shabbat.

Aha, so you also see as if that it’s not a kinyan, it’s not being makneh to other people, because that one wouldn’t be allowed to do on Shabbat. Okay. It’s not simple what it is exactly. It’s such a thing called nullification of domain.

The Rule: An Heir Stands in Place of His Testator for Everything

So, the heir can nullify it on Shabbat. Why? Because the heir stands in place of his testator for everything. The heir immediately receives all the rights that the testator had. And that’s it. He already acquired it, it’s already his, even erev Shabbat it happened automatically.

The meaning of this is as follows, in the Gemara it says that the question is, because there is a rule that one can only nullify something that one could have made an eruv with yesterday. So the question is, the heir couldn’t have nullified yesterday, because it wasn’t his yesterday, he couldn’t have made an eruv yesterday, whatever it wasn’t his. He says, he could have yes, because he is a continuation of his father who could have.

The Law of an Heir — The Power of Nullification from the Testator

So since his father could have, so he today is a continuation of that, but nullifying on Shabbat one may yes. The right is not a question.

Let me explain to you, there is no doubt that an heir is the owner of his inheritance. The novelty is he continues even the father’s ability from erev Shabbat. It’s interesting, it means that an heir is not simply that he receives the house, rather he becomes the father as it were, and the house remains his. It’s different from a regular kinyan that goes from A to B, it remains with A and he becomes A.

If one bought on Shabbat, the house, he goes, it’s not work in the house. He comes in place of his testator, that’s the point. Consequently he can make nullification of domain.

It means that if someone would in another way shehayah makneh (would transfer), the kinyan should be makneh, let’s say if one may, I don’t know, if someone makes a kinyan and says that on Shabbat the kinyan should take effect, and the other acquired, not necessarily that he can nullify. But here, since the law regarding an heir is that the heir comes in place of the testator, since the testator had at the time when one could have made an eruv on Shabbat the right to nullify, he can do it.

Question: But One Doesn’t Inherit an Eruv?

Speaker 1: Do you understand what I’m saying? No, but he comes in place of his testator, I would have had to say that he already has it beforehand. One doesn’t inherit an eruv. One inherits a domain.

But he inherited the house which the testator already gave away the right to everyone in the eruv. The eruv wasn’t given away, the eruv is for the people, the eruv is not for the house. The domain was given away for the house. If I remember it says this soon explicitly.

Nullification of Domain on Shabbat — Permitted Initially

The Rama says, nullifying domain on Shabbat is permitted initially, so one may do it, there is no problem.

Speaker 2: The nullification is part of the law of an heir?

Speaker 1: No, it’s a completely new line. He may do it. No, it connects to the fact that he may, even… Here one speaks for the first time clearly of a case where he died on Shabbat, the testator may he do it on Shabbat. Why? One that he can, because he comes in place of the testator. One to ask may one nullify on Shabbat? No, one may even initially nullify the domain on Shabbat. All the signs until now this is the thing of nullification.

I mean it’s a middle beginning. I mean it’s from the beginning of creation. I mean also that… I don’t know, I mean also that the testator must do it, because the eruv of the father already doesn’t work anyway, even if the father did make an eruv. One must see soon.

What the Rambam wants to say is, you shouldn’t think that it’s something that looks like kinyan or buying and selling that one may not do on Shabbat, one may do it initially on Shabbat.

Right, very good.

Nullification of Domain from Many to an Individual — There is No Large Guest

He says further, what happens like this? “If those who made the eruv nullified their domain to the one who did not make an eruv”. The person who was not me’arev, he also doesn’t want to be mevatel. But others go, they say, “we are all nullifying to him, we don’t have any separate reshut hayachid, everything is yours”. He is permitted. Right. The person to whom they nullified may carry, the line is not alone, rather he lives in the courtyard, so there is only one separate reshut hayachid in the courtyard. But they are forbidden, they are all forbidden, because no domain remained for them.

Why? They don’t remain with any domain. Hey, but didn’t it say earlier that one must remain with a domain? That’s not a problem. Right.

“And we don’t say they should be like guests with him”, we don’t say, let them all be looked at as if indeed the one person has a domain in the courtyard, and all are like guests with him. It doesn’t work that way, because “there is no large guest, guests go and are reduced”. A bunch of guests don’t go to one person. It doesn’t work that one person should have so many guests. On the contrary, a group of Jews can accommodate a guest.

What is the rule? It doesn’t mean that it’s guests, a person can have a courtyard, but it means that in this case one cannot say that the whole group are his guests. It doesn’t go that way. It’s not a logical reasoning that I understand, but that’s what the law says.

Speaker 2: Yes. The point is that an individual can become batel to the many, but the many cannot become batel to an individual.

English Translation

Speaker 1: One can nullify on Shabbos the bitul reshus (nullification of domain), because it’s possible, that’s the point, they want him, just as when he wants to carry they nullify everything for him, so he should be able to carry, and afterwards they will return to what it was. The Tosafos says explicitly that one may not do this.

Okay, let’s continue.

Bitul Reshus — Two or More Who Didn’t Make an Eruv

“If those who didn’t make an eruv were two or more”, until now we’ve been talking about when one person didn’t join in the eruv. But if two people or three people didn’t make an eruv, then, “and they nullify their domain to those who made the eruv”, they nullified their domain to those who did make an eruv, “then those who made the eruv are permitted”, those who made the eruv will be permitted, because they nullified their domain, “and those who didn’t make an eruv”, the people who didn’t make an eruv and they nullified their domain, “are forbidden”, they may not carry from their homes to the courtyard.

But the reverse cannot be done. “But those who made the eruv cannot nullify their domain to two who didn’t make an eruv”, they cannot nullify the domain to the two, because even if they would do this it still wouldn’t help, “because each one of them forbids the other”, because afterwards one of them would have to nullify to the other. That also won’t help.

Bitul in Two Steps — Doesn’t Work

Ah, what happens if it was done this way, and afterwards the last one should nullify, just one to the last one? “And even if one who didn’t make an eruv went back and nullified his domain to the second one who didn’t make an eruv”, it’s still “forbidden”, why? “Because at the time when those who made the eruv nullified to him, he was forbidden”, because when all those who made an eruv nullified to him, at that time it didn’t work, there’s still me and my neighbor who forbid the courtyard, and therefore we cannot carry. That’s the problem.

I don’t know. These are indeed the rules of the laws of bitul. This is a business. We’ll see. I don’t understand. Interesting.

One cannot, the point is, something that must be done in two stages, one cannot do in two stages. That’s the point. Bitul only works when it works in one shot. Two times? No, it doesn’t work anymore.

As you said, as you said that one took into his house, and he nullifies, and afterwards he nullifies the second time, that’s not good.

No, no, he says better. No, he says two stages that don’t work out for the halacha. You must first have each one nullify to the one who didn’t make an eruv, and afterwards it still doesn’t help, because there remain two who didn’t make an eruv. They need extra. One cannot make extra steps. If the previous step remained forbidden, one cannot make another step to solve it. That’s what he’s saying.

Question: Must Several People Nullify at Once?

Speaker 2: So it means that several people in the courtyard need to nullify, must they do it at once?

Speaker 1: No, they don’t need to do it, because it doesn’t work out logically. Yes, they can nullify, they don’t have to do it at once. Each one, he forbids the domain, he forbids the domain. So when one nullifies, it’s still forbidden, because the next person hasn’t yet nullified.

Speaker 2: Which next person?

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue.

Speaker 2: Ah, you mean in the previous case.

Speaker 1: Yes, when several people are nullifying, what happens then? Must they nullify at once? Because if when one nullifies it’s still forbidden, the bitul doesn’t help.

Very good. Indeed there are tzaddikim who thought this way. But others don’t think so. Why not? I’m trying to understand some distinction. I don’t know exactly. I feel there’s a distinction, I just don’t know what it is. I don’t know clearly. There’s perhaps a… I don’t know. I don’t know. He brings it perhaps as another problem, I don’t understand what their problem is.

Okay, let’s continue.

Bitul from One to One — One Who Made an Eruv Nullifies to One Who Didn’t Make an Eruv

One who made an eruv nullifies his domain to one who didn’t make an eruv. What does this mean? When we’re talking here about a courtyard where there are only two people? Yes. One who made an eruv cannot nullify to one who didn’t make an eruv. But the reverse, yes. One who didn’t make an eruv nullifies his domain to one who made an eruv.

It can’t be just two people, because with two people there’s no eruv at all. The point is that one person cannot… with an eruv, that means two people who made an eruv, we’ve now learned, can make a bitul for a third person who didn’t make an eruv, and then only they, yes, only the one who makes the eruv becomes permitted.

But one person, one person who made an eruv, cannot nullify to one person who doesn’t have an eruv. And the same thing in reverse, that the one who didn’t make an eruv should nullify domain to the one who did make an eruv. I don’t know why not, but that’s what the Rambam says.

Discussion: What Does “One Who Made an Eruv Nullifies to One Who Didn’t Make an Eruv” Mean?

Speaker 2: He says that this is still talking about the previous case, when there was more than one person who didn’t make an eruv. We’re talking here about the last two people, meaning.

Speaker 1: I don’t understand, before the two people didn’t make an eruv. One who made an eruv… ah, the point is one needs everyone. If there’s an eruv, each one must agree, each one must nullify domain. One doesn’t help.

But the reverse does help, very simple, because there’s only one person left without an eruv, so he nullifies domain to one, and now that one is part of the rest.

Speaker 2: But before we learned that one must nullify to each one, specifically, remember? We learned before, no? Remember that we learned that one must nullify to each one? So what does he mean “one who made an eruv nullifies to one”? There’s only one, there are still ten people. So how does it help?

Speaker 1: He says that it must be that the second one died, tzarich iyun (requires investigation). He’s not the first one struggling with this, other commentators already struggle. Because it says, we learned before that one must nullify to each one. One cannot, not to each one, to each extra one. So what does it mean he nullifies to one in the eruv? He cannot, he must nullify to each one.

There’s a reason for this. The Gemara asks this question, and the Gemara answers he died, then one may. The Rambam should have said, says the Rambam, perhaps the Rambam relied on what I wrote above that one needs to nullify to each and every one, and it requires investigation. All these things that we’ve mixed up, one must say that it requires investigation, one may say that it requires investigation. True? It’s my halacha.

Digression: What Does “Tzarich Iyun” Mean?

Okay, when he says tzarich iyun, he’s saying you be my guest, I’ve struggled, you be my guest. Here there’s an old inquiry, what does tzarich iyun mean? Tzarich iyun means one must investigate, or tzarich iyun means a good question, let’s move on. Here there are other opinions about this. Tzarich iyun, what does tzarich iyun mean?

Bitul Reshus from Courtyard to Courtyard

Okay, now we’re going to learn that bitul doesn’t only work with a house, it also works from a courtyard.

The Rambam says: Just as this homeowner nullifies his domain to this homeowner in one courtyard, so they nullify from courtyard to courtyard.

Just as in one courtyard bitul works that a person nullifies his house, the same thing can also work that a courtyard can nullify to the mavoy. From one courtyard to the next courtyard.

And also, for example a mavoy with three courtyards, two courtyards can nullify to the third courtyard, and it becomes as if there’s only one courtyard in the mavoy. Or one to the second, yes.

And they nullify and go back and nullify.

There’s no limit, just two courtyards can nullify one to the other, and now it means as if both live together in the mavoy.

Ah, now you asked before a question whether one can change the bitul in the middle of Shabbos, the Mishnah says and the Tosafos, they nullify and go back and nullify. You have the three domains.

They Nullify and Go Back and Nullify: Changing Bitul in the Middle of Shabbos

Two who live in a courtyard and didn’t make an eruv. Two Jews live in a courtyard and didn’t make an eruv, now they want to carry on Shabbos. What does one do? One of them nullifies his domain to the second. One nullifies his domain to the second.

When does he use this? When does he nullify his domain to the second? May the second now carry because the first nullified?

We find ourselves saying, the second carries in his domain that his friend nullified to him until he does his needs. That means, that the other’s bitul works until the first one still needs to do his needs, until he still needs to carry. Once he’s finished carrying, he no longer needs to carry, the second goes back and nullifies his domain to the first, and he nullifies to the first his domain that he nullified to him. The second uses it as long as he needs. And so every time, each one who carries, when he carries he must be the only homeowner of that courtyard. He must beforehand ask them to nullify domain to me.

How… he then told him, nullifying domain is simply a statement, he must say I nullify the domain to you. When he says it, until he withdraws, he can carry.

Discussion: Why Can’t Both Carry Together?

Speaker 2: And here one can say, from one person there cannot be a guest for one person, that’s the same thing. If one person nullifies his domain to a second person, only the second can carry, not the first. Because he didn’t need to not have the nullifier…

Speaker 1: Ah, right, because they couldn’t both do their needs together.

Speaker 2: Right.

Speaker 1: Ah, very good.

Bitul Reshus in a Ruin

He says further, And there is bitul reshus in a ruin just as it is in a courtyard. Just as in a courtyard they can both nullify domain, so it will mean that they live in the ruin that is between them.

Discussion: What’s the Innovation of a Ruin?

Speaker 2: What’s the innovation? Did you think that a ruin is different from a courtyard?

Speaker 1: Because a courtyard, naturally, I understand that each one has a right. A ruin is something a bit more of an innovation.

Speaker 2: If that’s their arrangement, but a ruin isn’t usually a place where all people live together.

Speaker 1: But if one makes the bitul one can.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: So this one can learn how he answers what the bitul reshus turns out to be.

Deliberately Took Out vs. Accidentally Took Out: When Bitul Becomes Void

But afterwards… one nullified his domain, and he didn’t forget that he nullified the domain. He didn’t act as he said. He didn’t take seriously the courtyard as ownerless at the time of the bitul, but not later he wakes up and uses it already. So he shows with this that it wasn’t a true bitul.

So, if he deliberately took out, if he took out knowingly, this forbids them, he forbids the other people, they can, the other people may no longer carry in the courtyard. Because there’s no proof that he stands by his bitul, he showed that his bitul wasn’t genuine, he didn’t stand by it.

But accidentally, we’re also talking here in a manner when he cannot be a thief, as we learned before. It’s already in a mavoy, not in a courtyard. He already nullified the entire courtyard. When accidentally he took out, if he simply forgot and carried, not that he went against his bitul reshus, he doesn’t forbid them, because there’s proof he stands by his bitul, he holds by his bitul, it was just a mistake.

The Law When the Others Already Took Possession

The Rambam says, And these words apply when those to whom they nullified didn’t first take possession, they haven’t yet acted on his bitul, they haven’t yet, “and took possession” means they haven’t as it were shown their possession that the courtyard indeed belongs to them, because the other one nullified.

But if they first took possession, there’s the word “and took possession”, there is that they carried out, yes? “And took out”, they made a possession, they acted on his bitul, yes? And afterwards he went back and took out, this doesn’t forbid them, even deliberately it doesn’t forbid them, because they already made, they already grabbed, they cannot grab back as it were, even though the other one isn’t standing by it, we already grabbed, there’s such a kind of law.

Bitul Only Works When One Could Have Made an Eruv on Erev Shabbos

Okay, now we’re going to learn about a partition. We learned before, we learned by hint about this law, and now we’re going to see the law clearly, that a bitul, although bitul is better than, it has an advantage, you can call it a leniency or an advantage over an eruv. An eruv must be made on erev Shabbos, bitul can be made on Shabbos.

But this is on condition that one could already have made an eruv on erev Shabbos, I don’t know exactly the meaning of this condition, but if one cannot, for example we’ll learn, non-Jews made a partition on Shabbos, one cannot make bitul on Shabbos. Can I understand why?

Let’s see, two houses on two sides of a public domain, indeed, now they may not carry because it’s a public domain, and they may only carry if there’s a partition that surrounds the two houses. Non-Jews surrounded it with a partition on Shabbos, non-Jews made a partition on Shabbos, and already, in such a case it becomes a private domain on Shabbos, as we’ve already learned that one can make a partition on Shabbos.

But there’s a problem here, they cannot carry in the partition without an eruv. So what do they want to do? They want now, okay, on Shabbos we’ll nullify. One cannot nullify in such a case.

Since it was impossible for them to make an eruv while it was still day?

Speaker 2: Ah yes, yesterday they couldn’t make an eruv. Can’t they find a solution?

Speaker 1: So, the enactment of the Sages is that after there’s an eruv, then bitul is such a bedieved (after the fact), a last resort when the eruv didn’t work, when one couldn’t make an eruv because one person doesn’t want to, one person forgot, then there’s this solution of bitul. But if one didn’t make an eruv, one goes back to the original enactment of the Sages that it will look like one is carrying in a public domain, because one doesn’t see the… yes.

In short, bitul is such a bedieved solution for eruv. Bitul is a law within eruv, not some separate matter. It’s not a true law in and of itself, so it comes out. Something like that one can say.

Inheritance During Bein Hashmashos: One of the Courtyard Members Died

Now one can learn another law that’s built on the fact that the eruv, or the connection of the people, is established during bein hashmashos (twilight). Whatever the situation was during bein hashmashos, that remains, even if in the middle someone dies and the like. Yes.

So, one of the courtyard members died, and left his domain to another from the marketplace, one of the courtyard members died, he left that one from the marketplace should inherit him. His heir. Marketplace means just someone not from the courtyard, a stranger, no?

Speaker 2: Aha, not someone who isn’t there. His heir, his son, his heir doesn’t live together with him, he lives somewhere else.

Speaker 1: So, if he died while it was still day, he died while it was still day, someone inherited him, this heir is like one of the courtyard members, upon them. He’s not part of them, he doesn’t live there, but he has a domain. Very good. He forbids them.

Why? They cannot say “we are all one family living in one courtyard”, because that’s not so, there’s an heir there who doesn’t belong here.

But him it’s not relevant, one who forbids them doesn’t forbid them. Why? Because they inherited on Shabbos, they learned that inheritance doesn’t happen on Shabbos. True, but by us, when Shabbos came there was a house that belonged to one family, one courtyard member.

One from the Marketplace Died: The Reverse Case

Speaker 2: What’s the reverse? It’s interesting, how is this different from what we learned before, that one inherited on Shabbos? It’s going to be reversed.

Speaker 1: Hello, that’s what we learned before, the next one I mean.

Speaker 2: Aha, I’m a neighbor, yes.

Speaker 1: That before we learned that “one of the courtyard members died”. What happens exactly the reverse? One from the marketplace died, and left his domain to one of the courtyard members.

Speaker 2: Where is his house? In the marketplace.

Speaker 1: His house is in the courtyard.

Speaker 2: Before it was forbidden.

Speaker 1: Now the people think, okay, now… ah, he was an “outsider” who had a house in the courtyard, therefore one couldn’t make an eruv, because one of them didn’t participate. But one of the courtyard members was the heir.

Translation

So it is, “If he died before [Shabbos], it doesn’t prohibit, because it only prohibits all those who are mixed together.” Because when Shabbos came, one of the members of the courtyard had already made an eruv for the house, and he is indeed mixed with them, therefore it is good.

But “one who died from the marketplace” who died already on Shabbos, indeed “it is prohibited to them.” Because now living in this courtyard is a person who didn’t make an eruv.

Speaker 2: Earlier, the “one from the marketplace,” what did they do? I don’t know, perhaps it actually didn’t work. When the “one from the marketplace” was a house in the courtyard that didn’t have an eruv, that wasn’t part of the eruv, it didn’t work.

Speaker 1: So we want to think that it now automatically became permitted, because one of the members of the courtyard who is indeed mixed with them made an eruv. The heir who lived here before was mixed with them, for his house. Now he received a second house.

“It is prohibited to them until he nullifies to them the permission of his inheritance, or until he nullifies to them his permission.” One of the two. Either he should nullify the permission of the inheritance, or he should nullify his permission.

Speaker 2: Why is it prohibited to them? The heir lives in the courtyard. What was the question?

Speaker 1: The person was still alive, and when the person was alive it was Shabbos.

Law: One Who Descends to the Property of a Convert — The Law of Inheritance Regarding Eruv

Speaker 1: It was a business. But yes, one can do it with nullification of permission. The Gemara couldn’t make an eruv yesterday? How could he have made an eruv yesterday?

The answer is, let’s learn the law first. “An heir enters in place of his deceased for everything.” It’s as if he could indeed yesterday. He wasn’t in the category, he didn’t live there. He could indeed if he wanted, but yes.

Speaker 2: Perhaps one cannot there in his portion of the bread, he’s not there.

Speaker 1: I know, I know. I need to know an external law which is the law of one who doesn’t live in the courtyard, and how one makes the eruv.

The Rambam’s Language: A Convert Who Died During the Day

“A Jew and a convert who dwell in one alley, and the convert died during the day, even though another Jew didn’t take possession of his property until it got dark, it prohibits until he nullifies, because it’s fit to be inherited.”

The convert died on Friday during the day, even if another Jew wasn’t in possession of his property — the law is that a convert who dies, whoever wants, whoever is first acquires his property, because he has no heirs. It’s ownerless.

So they say, that even another Jew, even the other Jew, the Jew who was together in the alley, didn’t take possession of the property until it got dark, when he took possession, “it prohibits until he nullifies, because it’s fit to be inherited.”

Explanation of the Law: The One Who Takes Possession of a Convert’s Property Is Like an Heir

In the Gemara essentially, the convert, earlier the convert had an eruv, let’s say. Or didn’t have an eruv? He did have an eruv, let’s say. But now he died. A second Jew came from somewhere else, not from here, and he took possession of the courtyard. Or not the Jew who lives here, in short, a third Jew came. He took possession.

You would have said he’s a new person, he acquired on Shabbos, but Friday was still an eruv that works. They say no, since we learned the law earlier that an heir enters in place of his father, it comes out that he’s like an heir.

In this case he makes it worse, because he’s the person who didn’t make an eruv, so furthermore he takes possession “it prohibits until he nullifies his right as fit for an heir,” he must make a nullification.

Discussion: The Alley and the One Who Takes Possession

Speaker 2: We’re talking about the alley, yes? The question is about the alley.

Speaker 1: In the alley lived a Jew and a convert, and in the alley there was indeed a law that one must make an eruv. One must make an eruv because there are two Jews living there, a Jew and a convert, two residents.

There was one who took possession, that means he grabbed half the alley, not the Jew who was there together with him, but a second Jew from outside came in and he grabbed half the alley. So he “prohibits until he nullifies as fit for an heir,” yes, that means also an heir.

Speaker 2: If he wouldn’t have been an heir, he couldn’t have prohibited.

Speaker 1: That’s actually correct. If there wouldn’t have been another heir, it would automatically…

Speaker 2: Ah, it would have been ownerless?

Speaker 1: That means, it would have been for now only like one person, perhaps for a short time. He can nullify, just as an heir can nullify. That means, if there wouldn’t have been an heir, he couldn’t have.

Speaker 2: No, I’m saying, if a second one who takes possession of property wouldn’t have come, but apparently the Jew could have, because you’re saying there’s one person in the alley, the other is nullified, it’s ownerless.

Speaker 1: But now a second one came. The novelty is only that one who descends to the property of a convert is also called an heir, even though it’s not inheritance, it’s something like ownerless so to speak, it’s also called with the law of inheritance, and therefore he can also make a nullification since he’s called so to speak in place of the convert who could have made an eruv yesterday or actually made an eruv. Yes?

If the Convert Died After Dark

“And if the convert died after dark, even if another Jew took possession of his property, it doesn’t prohibit him, rather his permission is nullified.”

If the convert died only after it already got dark, there’s no difference. Even if another Jew took possession, grabbed and made possession of the property of the convert who died, “it doesn’t prohibit him,” he doesn’t prohibit the other Jew, that means he doesn’t say that he’s now the owner of the permission, “rather his permission is nullified,” because on Friday it was permitted, because the Jews there had perhaps an eruv among themselves, it remains with the permission.

Discussion: Nullification of Permission of One Standing and the Law of an Heir

Speaker 2: But that’s only the nullification of permission of one standing, which was indeed such a case. What happens with every heir?

Speaker 1: What do you mean with every heir? We learned, all eruvs that were on Friday, I mean, remain good even if the person dies. The question is only when a new person comes on Shabbos, then it’s a problem. Agreed?

Speaker 2: I don’t understand clearly what you’re saying.

Speaker 1: The question, I told you earlier, all these laws go with this. “From when does Shabbos prohibit him.” The only way that it’s relevant that it’s prohibited is when on Shabbos there’s a new person in the domain who didn’t make an eruv. But normally, as long as that person isn’t there, it doesn’t bother us. Once Shabbos comes and there’s an eruv, the eruv remains the whole Shabbos, and it doesn’t matter what happens in the middle of Shabbos. One cannot become prohibited on Shabbos, except in the one case of retroactive revelation. That’s how I understand it.

—

Law: A Jew Who Dwells with a Gentile — A Gentile’s Dwelling Is Not a Dwelling

Until now we learned laws of two Jews, or a convert. Now we’re going to learn about a gentile. What does one do when a gentile lives with a Jew in one courtyard? Okay.

The Rambam’s Language

“A Jew who dwells with a gentile, or with a resident alien in a courtyard, doesn’t prohibit him. Because a gentile’s dwelling is not a dwelling, and it doesn’t establish a prohibition.”

So, one Jew with one gentile don’t need an eruv. A gentile is not a person.

Explanation: Why a Gentile’s Dwelling Is Not a Dwelling

The point is because the Jew doesn’t reckon with this. Not that a gentile is an animal, whether he’s an animal, not an animal, that’s an inquiry in itself. The point is that a Jew who lives with a gentile, the Jew doesn’t reckon as if that one is a Jew, and there’s no… like the whole place is a private domain. Doesn’t need an eruv. There aren’t two residents.

—

Law: Two Jews and a Gentile — A Decree That Gentiles Should Not Dwell with Them

But, there’s a special law. If now, more than two Jews together with a gentile. Two Jews with a gentile, “this one prohibits the other.”

The Rambam’s Language

Why? Says the Rambam, why? Not from the basic law, like the enactment of King Solomon, because a gentile’s dwelling is not a dwelling. But essentially one should have done so, the two Jews should make an eruv between themselves, and the third is the gentile, who is indeed like a gentile. But not so.

Why? This is a decree. Why? “So that gentiles should not dwell with them,” that Jews shouldn’t make themselves comfortable to live together with gentiles, so that a gentile shouldn’t live with them, “so they shouldn’t learn from his deeds,” they shouldn’t learn from him.

They made a law that a Jew may not bring a gentile into a Jewish neighborhood.

Discussion: Why Not with One Jew and One Gentile?

Speaker 2: You ask, one Jew and one gentile is permitted?

Speaker 1: The Rambam asks, “And why didn’t they decree with one Jew and one gentile?” It’s the same thing.

Says the Rambam, because this is a minor matter, the thing is indeed something uncommon. Why? “Perhaps he’ll be afraid perhaps he’ll be alone with him and he’ll kill him.” There’s indeed a prohibition, we always have fear that a gentile with a Jew, one Jew and one gentile, there’s indeed a concern of seclusion. So it’s therefore prohibited to be secluded with a gentile, so there’s already a prohibition of seclusion of a Jew with a gentile lest he kill him. We don’t need to make the law here in the eruv.

But then when with the law of seclusion it’s permitted, we made the prohibition with the eruv, so that they shouldn’t dwell with them.

Very good.

—

Law: Eruv and Nullification of Permission Don’t Help in the Place of a Gentile

Now, what happens? So what are we going to do? Yes? There’s a problem. A gentile, we said it’s prohibited. Very good. One can’t make an eruv. A gentile can’t make an eruv. So what must one do?

The Rambam’s Language: Eruv and Nullification Don’t Help

“Two Jews and a gentile who dwell in one courtyard, and the Jews made an eruv for themselves, they accomplished nothing.”

The two Jews made an eruv, they accomplished nothing. They didn’t accomplish anything, because the courtyard is still a public domain. This is the decree of a public domain. Very good. It makes it back into a public domain. It makes it back into a decree of a public domain.

“Neither do they nullify to the gentile.” What happens if the two Jews nullified their permission to the gentile? “Or he nullified to them,” the gentile nullified his permission to the Jew. “Or the Jews nullified to each other and became like one with the gentile.” Ah, one Jew alone the decree falls away, because with seclusion we first made the decree.

“They accomplished nothing,” one accomplished nothing. You try to outsmart, it doesn’t let itself.

Explanation: Why Doesn’t Nullification of Permission Help?

Why? “Because eruv doesn’t help in the place of a gentile, and nullification of permission doesn’t help in the place of a gentile.” A gentile doesn’t understand eruv, a gentile doesn’t understand to join together with another Jew, and he also doesn’t understand to nullify himself to a second Jew.

Because the nullification of permission is indeed a law in Shabbos. And it’s not a true nullification of permission, and one may not make an eruv or nullification. It’s not a gentile thing, but Jews understand eruv and nullification. It’s a kind of love of Israel, there’s a Jew… okay, one can’t mean Torah.

“The enactors,” that there shouldn’t be any other permission, “unless he rents and nullifies his permission.”

—

Law: Renting Permission from the Gentile — The Permission

What can one indeed do with a gentile? A gentile one needs actually money, he talks indeed to everyone. Nullification is hard to understand, but come with a few dollars and rent the place from him.

Explanation of the Law: The Gentile Becomes Like a Guest

And what happens then, there’s a gentile who rented the place, “and made the gentile as if a guest with him.” The gentile is a guest, and a guest may have his things, because he’s a guest.

So the gentile may be, but the problem is, how can you say that only Jews live here? Ah, the gentile is a guest of ours.

One Jew and a Hundred Gentiles

Speaker 2: One Jew and a hundred many gentiles. What does the problem mean that many people can’t be such for one person can’t fear many gentiles. Aha.

Speaker 1: From the gentile, and mine means it now the Jew’s permission? Mine can make an eruv with the Jews, and automatically the permission that you rent from the gentile becomes a part, like all of them become permitted, and with one each which the need can with a gentile, not each one extra needs to go and rent from the gentile.

Very good. One must think that it’s not a false arrangement, but yes they’re going to give money to the gentile, okay they’re going to give money, but they want to receive from this a right to be able to carry in the eruv.

Very good.

—

Law: Inner and Outer Courtyard — Jew and Gentile

What happens if a… and now we can learn another way which means still a Jew lives a gentile also, they don’t live completely in the same domain, but one is under the other, yes. Imagine a creation, one in front of the other. Now to come to the innermost one must go through the outside one.

The Rambam’s Language

“One Jew and one gentile dwelling in the inner,” in the innermost lives one Jew and one gentile, one Jew and one gentile, living in the innermost “and one Jew in the outer,” a Jew is the outer one, that means the innermost, which is the Jew and the gentile, must always go through the outer courtyard.

Or the opposite, “that the Jew and the gentile are in the outer courtyard, and a Jew alone in the inner.” So it is, “he makes for the outer,” the outer, the Jew or the Jew and the gentile who are in the outer, “they are prohibited on the inner, until they rent from each other.”

Why? Because just like in one courtyard

Law 2: Inner and Outer Courtyard with Gentile and Jew

“And one Jew in his courtyard, one Jew is in the outer.”

Speaker 1: Aha.

Speaker 2: That means that the innermost which is the Jew and the gentile must always go through the outer courtyard, courtyard. Or, or the opposite, “that there was a Jew and gentile in the outer, and one Jew in the inner. So it is, this one prohibits on the outer,” the outer, the Jew or the Jews, the gentile are in the outer, they prohibit on the outer, “until he rents from the gentile.”

Speaker 1: Why? Why?

Speaker 2: Because just like with one, it means like one, one courtyard. In the two… in the outer courtyard live two Jews and one gentile. Even though it’s two external courtyards, but in order to come to the courtyard he must walk through, so furthermore he must come that the courtyard should be his, the foot of two Jews and a gentile are there, so on the outer one must rent. But the inner with the inner, in the inner lives indeed only one Jew and one gentile, here indeed also isn’t the decree, or one Jew, no difference.

Details of the Laws of Renting from the Gentile

Now one can learn the details of renting from the gentiles, since the whole reason is not to live with the gentiles, it’s a leniency, for this a leniency from the gentile. Yes, normally one may not make any business transaction on Shabbos, one may not go rent something on Shabbos, but they permitted “renting from a gentile even on Shabbos,” one may go…

Speaker 1: It’s indeed not a deal with money. One can make aside?

Speaker 2: Yes. One can discuss a rental with a gentile even on Shabbos, “because rental is like nullification of permission.” The rental that one speaks of there, is not a rental that it is truly with all the laws of business transaction, or one rents it and it goes with all the laws like normal rental, this is a small thing, “that it’s not a definite rental,” not a true rental, “but merely a recognition,” it’s only a recognition.

Speaker 1: Aha.

Speaker 2: It’s a recognition, like something like nullification of permission, like nullification of permission you understand that this is regarding Shabbos, here also the rental works for Shabbos, therefore one may rent on Shabbos, which means not business transaction on Shabbos. Correct.

Speaker 1: Therefore?

Speaker 2: “Therefore, one rents from the gentile even for less than a perutah’s worth.” Normally what is the custom to rent is less than a perutah’s worth, but since it’s only a matter of a recognition, one can do it even for less than a perutah’s worth.

Who Can Rent from the Gentile

Speaker 1: And not only that?

Speaker 2: Not only that, but even people who don’t normally have the right to rent a place, can rent. “The wife of the gentile rents with her consent,” the wife of a gentile can rent “without his consent.” Therefore? Therefore “rental or loan,” though they don’t truly have the right, but some right they have. They live there, they’re somewhat partners, a bit of partners. They run the house. Enough for a principle it’s enough. “She rents without his consent.”

“Even rental or loan from a Jew upon it,” even he’s a Jew. One goes to the Jewish worker of the hotel of the gentile, and one tells him, one gives him half a perutah, and one tells him he should transfer, he should rent the permission. So it goes into “rents without his consent.”

Borrowing a Place in the Courtyard Street

Here’s another strategy that can be done, one doesn’t even need to rent with money, one can borrow a space. Sho’el min hagoy makom berechov hechatzer, he borrows from him a piece of space in his house. Since he agreed to it, he lent it to him, harei nishtatefu imo birshuto, he has become a partner in his domain, ve’eino maskir shelo mida’atah. Ah, but then he goes and rents the piece for himself alone. Now who is one? I let him begin. Okay, now I rent it. Interesting.

A Gentile Who Has Many Renters

Hoil vehagoy ein sechirus o hasha’alah shelo ela min harabim, a gentile has many rentals or borrowings from the public, so furthermore, ein tzarich ela echad mehem, one doesn’t need to speak with everyone, one is enough.

And on this, al gabei zeh, the Rishonim of Ashkenaz devised another leniency, that if one lives in an entire city of gentiles, one can go to the moshel ha’ir (city ruler) to whom the entire city theoretically belongs, and say that one has rented from him with a perutah the entire city, and consequently the entire city, even if it’s full of gentiles… Okay.

Law 3: Renting on Shabbos When No Eruv Was Made

Shnayim asar ilan vegoy hadarim bechatzer achat, and they didn’t make an eruv. So the law is that one may not… it doesn’t help to be mevatel one’s domain. But they can do everything on Shabbos, sochrin min hagoy beShabbos, and afterwards one is mevatel his domain to the other. But he’s speaking here in a case where they didn’t make an eruv. And what does one do? They rent from a gentile on Shabbos, and how can one carry afterwards? So each one when he needs to carry, the other one is mevatel the domain for him so that he can carry, so it becomes like one domain. Indeed the gentile has already rented, and the Jew will be mevatel, he will be mevatel his own and he will be mevatel the gentile’s that he rented. Yes, it’s permitted.

Vechen im ein sham goy beShabbos, and there’s no one from whom to rent now, mevatel Yisrael leYisrael acher, veyomar lo tol. Fine news.

Law 4: A Gentile Who Rented from a Second Gentile

Now one needs to know what if one gentile rented a domain of a courtyard for a second gentile, truly rented, not a fake rental. Goy zeh sachar migoy, so it’s like this, im eino rashai lehotzi et hagoy hasheni ad sheyashlim zman sechirusto, meaning he’s not just a simple renter like a hotel, he can throw him out, but if it’s a long term rental, that the first gentile cannot evict the second gentile until his lease ends, from whom must one rent? One must rent there from the second one, one cannot rent then from the first, because the first doesn’t hold the domain. Sochran min hagoy hasheni shenichnas tachat habe’alim.

Aval im yesh reshut lehotzi et hagoy hasocher mimenu bechol eis sheyirtzeh, if they don’t have a lease, he rents to him short term, and technically the first gentile can evict the renting gentile, then, im lo hayah hasheni omed, the second one isn’t available, he’s not there, they went and they rented from the first gentile, veharei hen mutarim, it’s also permitted, such a rental also helps. Okay.

Law 5: Windows Open from a Jewish House to a Jewish House

Now one can learn another detail in the law. It’s the same law, but since they bring the law of windows, which isn’t, yes? Let’s see. Chatzer sheYisrael vegoy sheruyim bah, but the courtyard that requires an eruv, vehayah chalonot petuchin mibeit Yisrael lazeh, and there are windows that go across, one doesn’t need the gentile, the windows go directly from the Jew to the Jew, why is the eruv through windows? One can make an eruv through the window, one doesn’t need to make an eruv that goes through the door, one can go through the window too. One will learn later many details about this.

Af al pi shemutar lehotzi ulehachnis derech hachalonot, and that through the windows one views it as if it’s one house, right, he’s entered into the domain, aval lehotzi mibayit lebayit derech chatzer asur mipnei hagoy ad sheyiskor. Don’t say, the two people have an eruv, their eruv doesn’t disturb the gentile, why? Because it goes through windows, the gentile doesn’t have access to the windows. But it doesn’t tell me so far that the two should become like one, that one shouldn’t need to rent from the gentile. Why? Because the gentile doesn’t understand eruvin, for him there are still two Jews. No, because Chazal said the reason, that one shouldn’t live together with a gentile, even if one has a way out.

Discussion: Why Doesn’t the Eruv Through Windows Help?

Speaker 1: You don’t understand again, won’t there be no gentile there? Here he has through windows. Say, what if they may only carry through windows?

Speaker 2: Exactly. One can make an eruv through windows. If there are two people who have a window from one to the other, and he doesn’t want to make an eruv with the third Jew who lives there, they can make an eruv just between themselves, and they may carry through windows, but in the courtyard they may not, because the courtyard belongs to the third one also.

Speaker 1: Ah, he thinks that because the third one is a gentile, they may not even go through windows?

Speaker 2: He thinks that because he already made an eruv, now there’s only one Jew. One Jew doesn’t need, doesn’t need rental from the gentile.

Speaker 1: Ah, it remains for you now like only one Jew and one gentile, because the two Jews became one?

Speaker 2: No, but it doesn’t become one, that’s the point, it doesn’t help.

Law 6: One Who Desecrates Shabbos Publicly and Worships Idols

Until now we’ve learned about all sorts of people, about Jews, about heirs, about converts, about gentiles. Now we’re going to learn about an apikoros (heretic). What is this – a Jew who is like a gentile? And we learned at the end of Hilchos Shabbos that a mechalel Shabbos (Sabbath desecrator) is like an oved avodah zarah (idol worshiper), so he’s like a gentile. A mechalel Shabbos befarhesya (public Sabbath desecrator) is like an oved avodah zarah.

Speaker 1: No, it’s not as severe as avodah zarah.

Speaker 2: Ah, yes, we learned there that Shabbos and avodah zarah are the two most severe transgressions. We learned there that there are two ways how a Jew becomes like a gentile. And now we’re going to speak halachah lema’aseh (practical law).

A mechalel Shabbos befarhesya, o shehu oved avodah zarah, harei hu kegoy lechol devarav, ve’ein me’arvin imo, ve’ein mevatlim lo reshut, ela sochrin mimenu kegoy. Yes, good. This is a way how to fix him. One shouts “Shabbos” after him, and locks him in. But this is a gentile.

Law 7: Minim – Tzedokim and Baisusim and Those Who Deny the Oral Torah

Aval hamin min haminim she’eino oved avodah zarah ve’eino mechalel Shabbos, but from the minim (sectarians) who have opinions, he believes in Torah, but he doesn’t believe in eruv, kegon Tzedokim uBaisusim, vehakofrim baTorah shebe’al peh, klalo shel davar, kol mi she’eino modeh bemitzvos eruv.

Speaker 1: That means, he’s not a Jew?

Speaker 2: This is the principle in Rambam that a Tzedoki doesn’t mean kegoy lechol devarav. Although he doesn’t acknowledge eruv, he doesn’t believe in the Oral Torah, but he’s not a gentile. He’s not like a Jew who is a mechalel Shabbos befarhesya, who is an oved avodah zarah. What is the law with him? He speaks to us about him in 4:2. Yes. The Klelos Shel David also says that what the minim and Tzedokim and Baisusim he’s speaking about here, regarding the law he’s speaking about here is that he doesn’t believe in the mitzvah of eruv. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the eruv, then he’s not me’arev with the eruv, he doesn’t want to become mixed together with the eruv. He doesn’t believe in the concept of eruv. For a merchant when he’s not one a gentile, not a gentile, you see, how to rent from him one cannot, because there’s no community to rent the whole. But what can one do? Bitul reshut (nullification of domain), you see, bitul a min understands. A Jewish min is subject to bitul, you see indeed that it’s…

Speaker 1: Because the one who doesn’t acknowledge eruv, usually he also didn’t believe in such a fake bitul, he didn’t believe that he’s a straight person.

Speaker 2: No, no, no, he’s not a straight person. Here it appears that he doesn’t believe in eruv, but he does believe in bitul reshut. He also has such a thing, mevatel reshut, one must correctly write, one must come to a compromise with him.

Speaker 1: No, no, no, a Tzedoki is not a non-Jew, a Tzedoki is just one who doesn’t believe in eruv.

Discussion: Bitul Reshut Versus Eruv

Speaker 1: No, one sees here, I know that lema’aseh it appears that eruv is more lechatchilah (ideal) than bitul, but one also sees throughout the laws that it’s built on the fact that essentially bitul is better than an eruv. Bitul means that he’s completely not there. It’s a bit more final, not what you’re saying.

Speaker 2: He says there what, “vechayim me’iri Yisrael echad chashuv kazeh”, he says there, he says there that a Tzedoki doesn’t help the leniency of one, because one is only a gentile, because a Jew doesn’t live with a gentile. But a Tzedoki is not suspected of murder. Consequently, he only has a problem that he can’t make an eruv, consequently one must make bitul with the Tzedoki. Perhaps indeed, perhaps the Tzedoki won’t want to make bitul, one will need to evict him. But now we’re speaking about what one can work out.

Right, what one sees here is that with one Jew, a simple weak Jew, with eruv it helps, one is me’arev with other Jews. But one who has opinions against the Torah, one must be mevatel to him. Yes, because he doesn’t believe in the eruv itself. He doesn’t believe in the Torah.

Speaker 1: Yes, yes. Need to know if it’s because he’s a bit of an apikoros in the Torah?

Speaker 2: No, he says here that the issue is because he is eino modeh be’eruv. That means, one who doesn’t understand eruv, is whatever, he does it on behalf of those who do understand. But one who knows, but he doesn’t agree with it. Okay. Until here both sides.