Siman 366

A house that has many neighbors, and each one dwells in a room for himself, and similarly a courtyard that has many houses, where each one dwells in a house for himself, the law of the Torah is—that they are all permitted to carry from the courtyard to the houses, and from the houses to the courtyard, and from room to room and throughout the entire courtyard, because this is all a private domain and not a public domain. And similarly, an alleyway that has a lechi or a korah, from the Torah—they are permitted to carry throughout the entire alleyway, and from the alleyway to the courtyards and houses, and from them to the alleyway, for it is not a public domain. And similarly, a city that is surrounded by a wall and was surrounded for the purpose of dwelling—it is permitted from the Torah to carry throughout the entire city, if it has doors that are locked at night, or are fit to be locked according to the Rambam, as has been written in siman 364, and this is the law of the Torah.

But by the words of the scribes—it is forbidden for neighbors to carry in a domain that has a division of dwellings, until all the neighbors together make an eruv from the eve of Shabbat, whereby they join together with one food and place it in one of the houses, to show that we are all joined and there is one food for all of us. And we are all as if we dwell in this place, in this room where the eruv is placed, and no one of us is divided in domain from his fellow. And just as the hand of all of us is equal in this place, so too the hand of all of us is equal in the places that each one took for himself, and behold we are all one domain. And Solomon and his beit din instituted this matter, (Shabbat 14b) and at the hour he instituted it, a heavenly voice went forth and said, "My son, if your heart is wise, my heart will also rejoice," (ibid.) and regarding this it is said at the end of Kohelet: "And besides that Kohelet was wise, he also weighed and sought out and set in order etc."—for he made handles for the Torah, (Eruvin 21b) meaning that he fenced fences around the commandments of the Torah, so that breaches would not be broken in it. And just as vineyards and orchards and gardens standing in a place where many walk, if they do not fence them with good fences—those passing by will trample them and no remnant will remain of them, so too the commandments of the Torah, if they do not make fences for them—in the end they will nullify them entirely, as our eyes see and hear, that the lawless of the generation who began to break the fences, over the course of time our entire holy Torah was uprooted from them. Therefore, a person must be very, very careful with the words of the scribes, and regarding this they said, "The words of the scribes are beloved," and we the children of Israel are obligated to stand in the breach regarding all the enactments and decrees of our sages, of blessed memory, so that they do not break in them even the slightest breach.

And why did they institute this? In order that the people should not err and say: just as it is permitted to carry out from a house designated for one individual to a courtyard in which many have a share, and from a courtyard to a street in a city surrounded by a wall, in which all the city's inhabitants have shares, so too it is permitted to carry out from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim, for even now they carry out from a domain designated for an individual to a domain designated for many people. Therefore, Shlomo decreed that regarding any domain in which an individual has authority—it is forbidden to carry out to a domain in which another has authority, such as from room to room in one house, and similarly from houses where each person has authority in his house to a courtyard where they all have authority, and similarly to a mavoi and to a city surrounded by a wall.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 1 of Eruvin, law 3: "And so too dwellers of tents or booths, or a camp that they surrounded with a partition—they may not carry from tent to tent until they all establish an eruv. But a caravan that they surrounded with partitions—there is no need to establish an eruv; rather, they may take out from tent to tent without an eruv, because they are all intermingled, and those tents are not permanent for them." Thus far his words. And that which we learned in the Mishnah at the end of the first chapter: 'Four things they exempted in a camp,' and one of them is eruvei chatzerot, this refers to a camp going out to war, as is explained in the Gemara there; but an ordinary camp that stands for many days in one place is obligated in an eruv. And it is called a caravan when they rest only for the Sabbath day, for this is a temporary tent, and like the words of the Rambam it is explained in the Yerushalmi there. And the Tur wrote that those who travel in deserts are exempt from eruvei chatzerot, and this is similar to a war camp, or because for them it is a temporary tent since they do not stand for a long time in one place. (And in the Tosefta chapter 2, halacha 4, the version is the opposite, that in a camp one is exempt and in a caravan one is obligated, see there; and so wrote the Ritva at the end of the first chapter, that so it must be said in the Yerushalmi, and see the Biur HaGra subsection 6).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "Houses that are in a ship require an eruv, even though the ship has partitions. And if the ship does not have partitions, it is forbidden to carry in the ship except within four amot." Thus far his words. For a ship is a fixed dwelling for those who cross seas and rivers, like houses on dry land. And the novelty is that even if the ship has partitions of ten tefachim within it, even though it sinks deep into the water and there are not ten tefachim from the water's surface to its top, nevertheless, since within it there are ten tefachim, it is a complete reshut hayachid. And I would have said that the houses are subordinate to it and are included in the ship, and are not like a thing unto themselves since they are mobile; he comes to teach us that this is not so. And if it does not have partitions of ten tefachim, it is a karmelit, and it is forbidden to carry within it more than four amot, and certainly from the houses into it and from it into the houses. And from it to the sea or to the river is permitted within four amot, for both of them are a karmelit. And an eruv does not avail in such a case from house to house unless the houses stand next to each other and there is an opening between them. For if they stand far apart, such that there is an intermission of the ship between them, an eruv does not avail with an intermission of a complete karmelit. (The laws that the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 5 regarding a ship, we explained above in siman 355, section 13; see there.)

The eruv that the residents of a courtyard make with one another—this is called eruvei chatzerot. And that which the people of the entire mavoi eruv together—this is called shituf or shitufi meva'ot. And so too, even when the courtyards eruv together among themselves without the mavoi, such as when they are open to one another—it is called shituf. There is no practical difference in all of this, except to know the terminologies for the sake of the laws that will be explained, whether one relies on shituf in place of eruv or on eruv in place of shituf or not. And it is necessary to know that eruv is called one courtyard when it has performed an eruv, and shituf is called for many courtyards, and by way of a mavoi. And there is another practical difference, for eruvei chatzerot must specifically be with bread, and shitufi meva'ot may also be with something other than bread, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

In the Gemara (49a) there is a dispute whether eruv is for the sake of acquisition—meaning that the house in which they place the eruv, the homeowner transfers the domain to them, and according to this, they may also acquire with a sudar, and the house of a minor is not effective, for he does not have the power to transfer. And likewise, the minor cannot establish an eruv for them, and it specifically requires the value of a perutah. Or, it is not for the sake of acquisition but for the sake of dwelling—meaning that through the eruv it is as if they all dwell there, and there is no transfer here at all, and therefore acquisition by sudar is not effective, for it specifically requires bread, as the primary dwelling of a person is in the place where his bread is placed. And also in the house of a minor it is permitted, and also the minor can collect the eruv, and there is no need for the bread to be the value of a perutah. And it is certain that the house in which they place the eruv—one does not need to give bread, for in any case he dwells there, and also for the reason of acquisition it is not necessary, obviously. And we hold that it is for the sake of dwelling and not for the sake of acquisition, (ibid. in Tosafot s.v. 've-katan', because Rava holds so, 66a.) and so ruled all the poskim. (See Taz end of subsection 2, and there is no need for this as is explained from Tosafot Sukkah 3a s.v. 've-ein' see there well and examine closely.)

One may not place the eruv in a courtyard, nor even in a house that is not fit for a dwelling, such as a gatehouse, an exedra, or a balcony, and similarly in a house that does not have four cubits by four cubits. And if it has enough to square four by four, such as one that is long and narrow, there is one who says that it is effective, (Magen Avraham subsection 6 in the name of the Ralbach) but according to what has been explained in Yoreh Deah siman 286 regarding the matter of mezuzah—it appears that it is not effective. (For at the beginning of Sukkah this is compared to mezuzah, and the Rosh ruled there that it is exempt from mezuzah, and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham there who cited to there, and as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote)

If they are accustomed to always placing the eruv in this house—one should not change it to place it in another house for the sake of the paths of peace, even if there is some reason to change it, unless there is a great reason for this. And even if the owner died or sold the house to another—it appears that one should not change it, for the reason is due to suspicion, that they might say they are carrying without an eruv (see Magen Avraham subsection 7), as it is stated in the Gemara (Gittin 60b). And even if the second person wants to give money for a mitzvah in exchange for placing the eruv in his house—they should not change it (Magen Avraham subsection 8). And if from the outset they stipulated that they would have the ability to change it—it is permitted (ibid.). And similarly, if the first person requests money—they may change it (ibid.). And ex post facto, if they placed it in another house even without any reason—it is not removed from there (ibid.). However, if the first person makes a clamor and complains about this—they take it from there and place it in the first location (so it appears to me). However, nowadays the custom is to place the eruv in the synagogue, and so the ancients practiced. And even though a synagogue is not a place of dwelling, nevertheless, for us, since the eruv is for the entire city—it is like a shituf, which does not specifically require being placed in a place of dwelling, for even a courtyard suffices, as I wrote in siman 386; see there. And one must be careful that they should be permitted to carry from the synagogue to the entire city, such that there is no interruption of a karmelit there, such as gardens and the like, for if not so, the eruv is nullified. And so in every place where they place the eruv, one must be careful regarding this (Turei Zahav subsection 3), and it is simple.

If there is no eruv in the city, the beit din—its law is like a courtyard of many without houses designated each house to one person, for they are permitted to carry within it, and likewise it is permitted to carry from the beit knesset to the courtyard of the beit knesset, if there are no dwellings in the courtyard, and this is not like carrying from a house to a courtyard, but rather it is all a courtyard and there is no private domain there. And even though there are places designated for each individual—nevertheless there is no partition between them, and it is not a place of dwelling as has been explained. And even if an individual built it and consecrated it as a beit knesset—nevertheless he has removed his authority and it is ownerless to all. (Magen Avraham, subsection 10) And in the name of the Maharil they wrote, that he forbids carrying from the beit knesset to the courtyard. (Ibid. and this is his intention as written in the Tosefot Shabbat, and examine it closely) And his reason is not known, for seemingly there is no prohibition in this, and even if there are guests eating in a room adjacent to the beit knesset, nevertheless guests do not forbid, as written in siman 370. However, it is possible that this is when there is a permanent homeowner, but in a beit knesset where there is no permanent homeowner—guests also forbid, and it requires further study for the halacha. (And this is the reason for the two opinions in the Magen Avraham there) However, in most cases there are dwellings in the courtyard of the beit knesset, and if so, it is automatically forbidden to carry from the beit knesset to the courtyard when there is no eruv there. But in the beit knesset itself, from the ezrat Yisrael to the ezrat nashim, and likewise to the rooms near the beit knesset where there are no dwellings, and the gatehouse of the beit knesset which they call a "palush"—all are like the beit knesset itself, and it is permitted to carry from this to that, since there are no dwellings there—they are all like a courtyard of many.

It is stated in the Gemara (49b): One who divides his eruv—it is not an eruv, but if he filled a vessel and there was a remainder—there is no concern if it is in two vessels, see there. And it appears in my humble opinion that this language indicates when he intentionally places it in two vessels because of some concern. But if he unintentionally places it in two vessels, or if his intention is that by doing so they will be placed better and the like—it is permitted. And that which concludes "if he filled a vessel and there was a remainder"—it cites a definitive matter, and so it is indicated from the language of the Rambam who wrote in chapter 1, law 18: "If they divided the eruv—it is not an eruv," which implies they divided it intentionally. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 4 wrote: "One must place the entire eruv in one vessel. And if they divided it and placed it in two vessels—it is not an eruv, unless one was filled and then it is permitted, provided that the vessels are in one house." Thus far their words, which implies that it is an obligation to place the entire eruv in one vessel. Nevertheless, it appears that their intention is also that the obligation is to place it in one vessel and not to be particular to divide it specifically into two vessels, but without being particular—it is perfectly fine. And so it appears, for the reason is because of being particular, as we say there: "One who is particular about his eruv—it is not an eruv, for its name is eruv," that they should all be mixed and pleased with it, that one should not protest against his fellow, but rather a comfortable and pleasant partnership. (Rashi) And since he places it in two vessels with particularity, this is not a pleasing and comfortable eruv. But without being particular, what do we care.

And based on this, it appears in my humble opinion, that neighbors who each dwell in a room of their own or in a house of their own, and only the cooking house that is called a "kuchnia" is one for all of them—that there is no need for an eruv. For since all of their Shabbat foods are in one room and in one oven, it is as if they all dwell in it, for the place of one's bread determines the residence. And even though they do not eat there, they are certainly able to eat there; for do they all eat the actual eruv? Rather, it is because it is fit to be eaten, and here too it is so. However, one could challenge this on the grounds that they are not in one vessel, but according to what we explained, that specifically one who divides the eruv with fastidiousness, it is not an eruv, but without fastidiousness—it is an eruv, and here too it is not with fastidiousness, but rather they act according to their way. Furthermore, this is similar to "filling the vessel and having some left over," where it is permitted in two vessels. Furthermore, this is only regarding a general eruv, but here, where the entirety of everyone's eating is done on Shabbat and on weekdays only in this room—there is no need at all for this condition of one vessel, since this is an actual dwelling. (And there is support for our words from Tosafot 72b, s.v. 'umodin', who wrote: "Since they all make use of it... for baking and cooking—they are considered as if they eat and sleep in one place." Thus far his words. And I saw in the Chayei Adam, klal 73, section 11, who wrote that since there are two factors, that they make use of the house of the homeowner and also the house is only lent to them, etc. Thus far his words. These are two reasons, as is explained in Tosafot there, for lending is a permission unto itself, see there and examine carefully.) (And there is further proof from section 24, see there.)

It is necessary that each of them not be fastidious regarding his eruv if his fellow should eat it. And if he is fastidious—it is not an eruv. Therefore, one must be careful not to make the eruv with something he prepared for the needs of the Shabbat. That is to say, when one makes the eruv from his own for all the residents of the courtyard and grants them merit through another, he should not make the eruv with an important item that he prepared for the needs of the Shabbat; for when the residents of the courtyard come to request it from him, he will be reluctant to give it to them, and it will result in the eruv being void. Therefore, it seems to me that one should not make the eruv with the large loaves that are served for the Shabbat meals, but rather with a smaller loaf than them, which is not so important. (This law is explained in the Gemara 68a regarding Abaye who said, "If I grant them the bread... and it is not possible to give it to them, etc.," and likewise in Tosafot there, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 5 who wrote this regarding an eruv where each one gives; this does not pertain so much, see there and examine carefully).

One may only establish an eruv with bread, even with bread made of rice or lentils. However, not with bread of millet, as it is not a species of bread at all. And any bread that is permitted for consumption, even though it is forbidden to this person establishing the eruv—it is permitted to establish an eruv with it. Therefore, one may establish an eruv for an Israelite with terumah, and for a nazir with wine for a shituf. Similarly, one who vows regarding this food or who swears that he will not eat it—one may establish an eruv with it and a shituf with it, for even though it is not fit for this person, it is fit for another, as we do not require something that is specifically fit for him. The sages were lenient in this, for since in any event it is his, such as if he inherited the terumah from his maternal grandfather who was a kohen, or if he paid the kohen for the terumah, or if the kohen granted them ownership from his own, and it is like a gift such that they are like his—the sages did not require that he himself must specifically be able to eat it. See what I wrote in siman 386, section 12.

But something that is forbidden to everyone, such as tevel, even rabbinic tevel, or ma'aser rishon from which its terumah was not properly taken, or ma'aser sheni and hekdesh that were not redeemed according to halacha—one may not make an eruv or a shituf with them. However, one may make an eruv and a shituf with demai, because it is fit for the poor, as one may feed demai to the poor; and with ma'aser rishon from which its terumah was taken; and with ma'aser sheni and hekdesh that were redeemed, even though he did not give the fifth, for the fifth is not a requirement for validity. And in Jerusalem, one may make an eruv with ma'aser sheni even though it was not redeemed, for it is fit there for eating, but not in the provinces unless they redeemed it. And ma'aser sheni that entered Jerusalem and exited—redemption does not avail it. And there is reason to doubt, since for eruvei chatzerot one only makes an eruv with bread, whether we specifically require bread over which one recites the blessing of Hamotzi, or even with bread over which one recites the blessing of Mezonot. And I found in the Darkhei Moshe in the name of our teacher Yerucham, that one may make an eruv even with lachmaniyot, see there; and this is pat haba'ah b'kisnin whose blessing is Borei Minei Mezonot, as I wrote above in siman 168, see there.

When each individual gives bread for the eruv—he should not give a slice, even if it is very large, but specifically a whole loaf—even a small one. And the reason is due to enmity, as one might say—I am giving a whole loaf and you a slice. And even if they all wish to give slices—it is forbidden, lest the matter return to its previous ruin (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). Meaning, that on the following Shabbat this one will want to give a whole loaf and that one a slice, and they will quarrel with one another. However, to give a measure such that all the whole loaves are equal—this matter is impossible, and also there is not such great fastidiousness in this, and only each one should be careful to give according to the required measure, and it will be explained in siman 368 how much is required in total. Nevertheless, even though it specifically requires a whole loaf, in any case if one took challah from it—we have no concern with it, for in this enmity is not applicable. Therefore, even though it is missing the amount of a baker's challah, which is one forty-eighth—we are not concerned about it, for they will think that the deficiency is because he took challah from it. Therefore, even if it was not subject to challah at all, such as if he kneaded less than the measure for challah—in any case we have no concern with it. And if it was a slice and he joined two slices with a splinter, such that he inserted the two ends of the splinter into them and joined them, if it is not recognizable that they are slices and it appears like a whole loaf—it is permitted, for there will no longer be enmity over it, since according to the appearance it is a whole loaf. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, that all this is when this one gives to the eruv and that one gives to the eruv. But if one makes an eruv from his own through the process of zikhui—he may make the eruv even with a slice, see there, for in this enmity is not applicable, since no one else is giving with him.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6: "And there are those who explained that which we do not establish an eruv except with a whole loaf, this means that the entire eruv together should be a whole loaf. Therefore, it is the custom to collect a little flour from every house, and they make one whole challah and establish the eruv with it, and such is the simple custom in all these provinces. And one must be careful that there should be in the challah the measure specified below in siman 368. And even though some of the flour remained and not all of it was made into the challah—even so it is an eruv, for it is no worse than one who grants merit to everyone, and with this intention they gave their flour from the beginning." Thus far his words. And among us, they make a large matzah or several matzot from the flour of the public, or of an individual. And the shamash, when he makes it from his own, grants merit to the entire city through another. And if the flour belongs to an individual—the shamash acquires it on behalf of all the city residents. And the reason they make matzah is that it lasts a long time (see Magen Avraham subsection 13 that it is good to grant merit), and among us it stands in a small closed box with a glass window, and they hang it in the synagogue, so that everyone sees it and they will ensure that it does not become moldy, and that there are no ants in it. And if this occurs—they bake another matzah, and the shamash supervises this.

If one of the residents of the courtyard or the residents of the city wishes to give the bread from his own for everyone—it is well and good, provided that he grants them ownership through another person. He himself cannot grant them ownership, for any object belonging to a person—he cannot transfer it to the domain of others until he removes it from his own domain. And when the other person acquires it for them—he lifts it from the ground a handbreadth, when he takes it from the ground at his instruction. And when he takes it from the table—he lifts it from the table a handbreadth. And when he hands it to him from hand to hand—he shall lift his hand in the air a handbreadth. And even though in all acquisitions when one acquires through lifting, three handbreadths are required according to several of the poskim, as we wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 198, nevertheless regarding eruv, which is rabbinic, they were lenient. (Tosafot 79b, starting with "Tzarich," see there). And also lifting by means of his force is considered lifting, which is to say, if it was resting on a board and he moved the board until it was raised a handbreadth—it is considered lifting even in acquisitions, as we explained there in section 8. And it appears that he can also grant ownership through kinyan sudar, and through kinyan agav, as in all acquisitions.

The one acquiring must acquire on behalf of all the residents of the courtyard, or the residents of the alleyway, or the residents of the city, and for anyone who will be added from this day forward. And one should not ask: behold, those who will be added do not know of this now, so how can he acquire on their behalf? For this is no question. Since it is a merit for him, that he should be able to carry—one may acquire for a person in his absence. And some say that even if he did not explicitly acquire for those who are added, the heart of the beit din stipulates concerning them that they shall be included in the eruv. And if the residents were added after the eruv was diminished from the measure that was for the previous ones—one does not need to add, for the remnants of an eruv suffice with any amount at all, as was written in siman 368. But for the sake of those added—one must add, for regarding them it is the beginning of an eruv, when they were added after it was diminished. (It seems to me that for the sake of a slave who was emancipated, or a gentile who converted (in ancient times)—he cannot acquire when they are added, for they are like a thing that has not yet come into the world, as they are a different body. And it is possible that according to what the Tosafot wrote in Ketubot 58b, starting with the words "After," he can acquire, see there. And a minor who became an adult—it is obvious that he acquires, for one may acquire for a minor, and examine this closely.)

Since the bread must leave the possession of the owners, as has been written, therefore when one grants possession through another—he should not grant possession through a person whose hand is like the hand of the owner, for if so, it is as if he grants possession through himself, and it is not effective. Therefore, he should not perform the granting of possession through his minor son or daughter, even if they are not supported at his table, because their hand is like his hand; nor through his Canaanite manservant or maidservant, whose hand is like his hand. However, he may grant possession through his adult son or daughter, even if they are supported at his table, for even though regarding a lost object it belongs to their father, as has been written in Choshen Mishpat siman 270—this is from an enactment of the sages because of ill-will, as is explained there. But their hand does not belong to his hand, and since he desires that they acquire on behalf of others—they can acquire. And so too through his Hebrew manservant or maidservant, even when they are minors, for their hand is not like his hand. And one should not ask how a minor acquires on behalf of others, for the answer is that certainly in a Torah matter he does not have the legal capacity to acquire on behalf of others; however, in a rabbinic matter like eruv—he can acquire on behalf of others, as is explained in Gittin (64b). And so too he can grant possession through his wife, even though he provides her sustenance, for even though the hand of a wife is like the hand of her husband, nevertheless, since we hold that when another gives her a gift on condition that her husband has no authority over it—it is effective according to several poskim, as has been written in Even HaEzer siman 85, and therefore when he grants possession through her—it is his will that it leave his possession. Therefore, even though she does not have a house in the courtyard—it is effective. (And it must be said that his own minor son is worse than another minor, because he is connected to his father. And in the Yerushalmi Eruvin chapter 7 halacha 6, it distinguishes between one who has understanding and one who does not, see there and examine carefully.)

And all this is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 1 of Eruvin, but the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot (79b, s.v. "u-mazkeh") is that this law is like the law of a found object, and through his adult son and daughter who are supported at their father's table—he cannot grant acquisition through them. And through his daughter—he cannot grant acquisition as long as she has not reached maturity, even if she is not supported at his table, since the Torah placed her under the authority of her father for kiddushin and for several matters. And likewise not through his wife to whom he provides sustenance, or if he said to her: "Keep your handiwork in exchange for your sustenance," and even if she has a house in the courtyard, because we hold later in siman 370 that she does not require an eruv, and therefore this is not effective; for if she herself required an eruv, I would say: "Since she acquires for herself—she acquires for others," but since she does not require an eruv—this is not effective at all, and all the more so when she does not have a house in the courtyard. But another person supported at his table—he can grant acquisition through him. And so it appears to me that grandchildren are not like children regarding this matter, and he can grant acquisition through them even when they are supported at his table, for their hand does not belong to him at all.

And behold, initially it is good to be concerned for the words of both opinions where possible; however, ex post facto, one relies on the words of the one who is lenient regarding eruv. And so too an adult who has a wife, and he and his wife are supported at his father's table—one may grant merit through him even initially when he feeds them based on an obligation, for even regarding a found object they are not his in such a case, as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat. (And this is the intention of the Rema in section 10). And according to what we explained there in Choshen Mishpat, if the time of the obligation ended and he maintains them at his table—their found objects are his, see there, and according to this, in the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam one does not grant merit through them, and for us, initially—one should not grant merit through them. And know, that when one grants merit in an eruv—there is no need to inform the neighbors before the Shabbat, but rather he informs them on Shabbat, for one may acquire a merit for a person in his absence. And when he informs them—they are permitted to carry on Shabbat. And even though they did not know at the onset of Shabbat, and it was not in their mind to establish the place of dwelling there, nevertheless this matter is pleasing to them even on the eve of Shabbat, and they consider that if it should happen that someone would make an eruv on their behalf—they are pleased for the place of their dwelling to be in the place of the eruv. (So one must say regarding the intention of the Rema there in this law, and examine it closely).

Members of a group who were reclining at a meal and the day became sanctified upon them—the bread that is on the table, they may rely upon it for the sake of an eruv. And this is specifically when they are reclining in a house, in a place that is fit to place an eruv there, but if they are reclining in a courtyard—no. Thus it is stated in the Gemara (85b) and in the poskim, and it is not understood what novelty there is in this. And there is one who wrote that even if the bread belongs to the homeowner, since it is placed on the table so that all of them may eat from it, it is shared by all of them, and it is as if he explicitly granted them acquisition. (Tosefot Shabbat, subsection 34). And it is not clear, for the term "members of a group" refers to when they joined together to eat, as is proven at the end of the seventh chapter of Pesachim. And also from our teacher, the Rema, in section 11, who wrote regarding this law: "And the same law applies if they have bread in partnership in one of the houses—they may rely upon it for the sake of an eruv," thus far his words; behold, it is explicit that each one has a portion in this. And when they are reliant on the table of others, who gave them permission to make an eruv? For he only granted them acquisition for what they will eat and no more, and behold, a guest is forbidden from giving from the table even to the son or daughter of the homeowner, as is stated in Chullin (94a). And it is true that the Maggid Mishneh wrote this in the first chapter, law 19, in the name of the Rashba, of blessed memory, and he wrote that the Rambam does not interpret it so. And according to the Rashba, we would need to press and say that for the matter of the mitzvah of an eruv, it is certainly pleasing to the homeowner; but according to the Rambam, it must be understood what the novelty is in this.

And it appears to me that this is the explanation: Since at the time of the sanctification of the day they all sat in one room, and the bread of everyone was on the table—this itself is the eruv, even though they did not explicitly set down an eruv. And this is the meaning of the phrasing "they rely," meaning that they rely on this alone, for the essence of acquiring an eruv is that they dwell together. And the essence of acquiring the eruv is at the onset of Shabbat, and they are indeed dwelling there at that time. And our teacher, the Rema, informs us of an even greater novelty, that even if they themselves were not together, but only their bread was together in one room—they also rely on this alone, and there is no need to make an eruv explicitly. And from this there is great proof for what we wrote in section 12, see there. And even though they did not recite the blessing, behold, the blessings do not invalidate, and also in such a case there is no need for a blessing.

It is a mitzvah to seek after eruvei chatzerot, and one recites the blessing "concerning the mitzvah of the eruv." And when does he bless? At the time he collects it from the residents of the courtyard, or at the time he grants them merit in it. And he says: "By means of this eruv, it shall be permitted for us to take out and to bring in from the houses to the courtyard, and from the courtyard to the houses, and from house to house for all the houses in the courtyard—for all the Shabbats of the year." And there are those who wish to add also "for Yom Tov," but the custom is not so. And if they collected the eruv and did not bless over it—the blessing is not indispensable and they are permitted to carry, for blessings are not indispensable. And it is not similar to eruvei tavshilin later in siman 527, where the blessing is indispensable, for there the essence is the blessing, so that he will select a fine portion for Shabbat, and without this it is nothing. But here, the essence is the partnership or the granting of merit. And one should not say that if so, the blessing would not be "prior to their performance." For it is not so, as before Shabbat enters it is called "prior to their performance." And another man who is not of the residents of the courtyard shall not recite this blessing, since he has no connection to this eruv, and he performs no action upon which to bless. Therefore, this is not similar to other mitzvot where another may also bless. And if Yom Tov falls on the eve of Shabbat, whether it is permitted to grant merit on Yom Tov, it will be explained in siman 528 that it is forbidden, see there. And know, that there are versions in which "from roof to roof" is also written in "by means of this eruv." And there is no need for it, for even without this it is permitted to carry from roof to roof, as I wrote in siman 372. And a guardian of a minor may make an eruv on his behalf, that is to say, to give a portion in the eruv for the sake of the minor. And we do not say, behold the minor can carry without an eruv, for a minor who eats neveilot, the beit din is not commanded to separate him, as I wrote in siman 343. Nevertheless, ab initio we do not leave him to act in prohibition, and furthermore so that his house will not prohibit for all the residents of the courtyard when he has no portion in it. (See Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 20 that the Arizal, of blessed memory, would bless and afterward would grant merit to the residents of the courtyard, and the Magen Avraham wondered at this, see there. And it can be said that he did so in order that the blessing would be "prior to its performance," and he would bless and grant merit and say "by means of this etc." And that which he wrote the language "after he makes the eruv for himself he shall grant merit also to others," this is its explanation: when he makes the blessing over the bread, behold he desires the eruv, and he grants merit to others as well and the eruv is completed, and examine this carefully.)