Siman 370

The sages taught in the Mishnah (Chapter 5): "One who places his eruv in a gatehouse, an exedra, or a balcony—it is not an eruv, and one who dwells there does not prohibit him. A straw-house, a cattle-shed, a wood-shed, or a storehouse—it is an eruv, and one who dwells there prohibits." That is to say, that eruvei chatzerot must be placed in a house that is in the courtyard, as was written in siman 366. And a gatehouse, which is a place through which one passes to the rooms in the house, even though it has four partitions, and similarly an exedra and a balcony—they are like a courtyard, and the eruv is not effective. Therefore, also one who dwells there does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard, since he does not have a house. But a straw-house, etc.—this is like a house, and one who places an eruv there is like one who places it in a house. Therefore, one who dwells there and eats there prohibits the residents of the courtyard. But one who has a straw-house, etc. and does not eat there, even if he sleeps there—he does not prohibit, for we hold that the place of one's bread determines. And similarly, a Sukkot booth during the festival—it does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard, even though he eats there, for it is a temporary dwelling and is not like a house (Yoma 10a), and consequently, one also may not place the eruv there. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a sukkah built like a house, except that on Sukkot they remove the roof and cover it with something fit for the fitness of a sukkah—it is called a house.

And they said there in the Gemara: "Every place where they said one who dwells there does not forbid—one who places his eruv there, it is not an eruv, except for the beit shaar of an individual," meaning that only one person passes through it, whereas a standard beit shaar is passed through by many, therefore it is not like a house at all. But the beit shaar of an individual is not like a house only regarding the matter that one who dwells there does not forbid, because it is not a permanent dwelling. However, when they placed an eruv there—it is valid, as it is like a house. And the Rambam ruled to the contrary, for in chapter 1 regarding the placing of the eruv, he ruled that even in the beit shaar of an individual it is not an eruv. And in chapter 4 regarding dwelling, he ruled that specifically in the beit shaar of many, the one who dwells there does not forbid, but not in the beit shaar of an individual, see there, for his version in the Gemara was thus: "Every place where they said one who places his eruv, it is not an eruv—the one who dwells there does not forbid, except for the beit shaar of an individual." And the reason is that because it is somewhat of a dwelling, they followed the stringent view in this. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not mention anything of this and I do not know why, and it requires further study. And regarding the law, it appears the halacha follows the words of the one who is lenient in eruv, and they can rely on the version of Rashi and Tosafot to be lenient. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work ruled like the Rambam, and he also inclined the opinion of the Tur to his opinion, see there. And this is regarding a beit shaar, but an achsadra and a balcony—there is no difference between an individual and many. (Our porch does not forbid.)

A homeowner who has many houses in his courtyard, and he lent them or rented them to others—they restrict him and they restrict one another, for at their time, each one is like his own house. Nevertheless, the sages said that if the homeowner has a grasp in all the dwellings—he does not restrict, for it is considered as if the homeowner dwells with them. And the reason seems to me to be because lending and renting are not like a sale, and only nevertheless, since the borrower and the renter have control over the house, it is considered like his. And since the homeowner also has a grasp—the homeowner is considered here as one who has control over the house.

And what is "tefisat yad"? Rashi explained—that the homeowner has a place in this person's dwelling where he places his vessels for storage. And we conclude in the Gemara that we require something that is not moved on Shabbat. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter 4, law 14, and this is his wording: "A homeowner who rented out houses in his courtyard to others, and left vessels or types of merchandise in each and every house of them—they do not prohibit him, since he has a tefisat yad in each house of them, they are all considered like guests with him. In what case are these words said? When he left there something that is forbidden to move on Shabbat, such as tevel or glass blocks. But if there remained for him in each house of them vessels that are permitted to be moved, since it is possible that he will take them out today and no tefisat yad will remain for him there—behold, these prohibit him until they make an eruv." Thus far his words. And anything that is permitted to be moved for the sake of its place, such as a vessel whose primary use is for a forbidden purpose—is not called tefisat yad, and specifically like tevel and glass blocks which are forbidden even for the sake of their place—is called tefisat yad. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that also something that is not moved due to its weight is like something that is not moved—and it is a tefisat yad, such as large chests and the like. (And from the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 3, it appears that the Rambam disagrees on this. And I wonder, for go after the reasoning. And regarding what he wrote as to what measure there is for weight, certainly there is a measure in things that our eyes see stand always in their place.)

There is a doubt regarding the words of our teachers, whether the intention was that the homeowner had a condition in this matter, that he is able to place his vessels there, but without a condition it is not effective, or even without a condition. From the wording of Rashi it is clear that specifically when he has a condition in this matter, for he wrote: "that the homeowner has a place in the dwelling of this one where he places his vessels there," thus far his words, and the wording "that there is a place" clearly explains that he conditioned thus with him. And it must be said that also what the Rambam wrote, "and he left vessels for himself etc.," the explanation is that this was the discussion between them, and so the mind inclines, for without a condition, what relevance is there to consider him like a homeowner and the neighbors like guests. And so it is explained in the Mordechai, who wrote: "for it is not considered a grasp of the hand except for a homeowner who rents out his house, and holds back for himself one of the corners of the house to place his vessels there etc.," thus far his words; behold it is explicit as I have written. (And the Bach raised a difficulty: what does it matter to us that the homeowner can remove them from there on Shabbat, since the neighbors cannot etc., see there. And it is not understood, for since the homeowner can remove them on Shabbat—this is not a fixed presence, and it is not called a grasp of the hand, and he is not like a homeowner there such that they would be considered like guests, and examine this well.)

Therefore, when he has a foothold, and they are considered as guests with him—they too are permitted to carry out from their houses to the courtyard, even though they did not make an eruv. And some say that this is in a place where there are no other residents in the courtyard, for the owner has a foothold in all the residences. But if there are residents in the courtyard in which the homeowner has no foothold and they are required to make an eruv—these too must give a portion in the eruv, and they are not considered as guests with the homeowner, for since these forbid—those also forbid. And this is when they take their eruv to the others who forbid. But when the eruv comes to them—they fulfill their obligation with the eruv of the homeowner, and the reason for the matter will be explained in section 12.

And it is simple that the "grasp of the hand" is effective only from a homeowner to his neighbor; that is to say, for example, that Reuven is the homeowner of the entire courtyard, whether it is actually his or he rented it all or borrowed it all from the owners who are not here, and afterward he rented or lent to the neighbors. But from neighbor to neighbor—the "grasp of the house" is not effective to consider both of them as one, and they require an eruv. And so too, two who purchased a courtyard or rented or borrowed it together—they prohibit one another, and the "grasp of the house" is not effective, even if he has a designated corner. (See Taz, subsection 1, who wrote that even if there is a designated corner for the homeowner, it is called a "grasp of the hand," see there. And there are those who err to interpret that a designated corner is effective without vessels, and it is an error. For the intention is the opposite: even if he has only a corner with vessels and not the entire house, it is called a "grasp of the hand," see Beit Yosef.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "One who rented a house from a gentile, and rented out one of the units in the complex to his fellow. If he did not initially rent it with this intention—it is as if the entire complex is his, and he rented out one of the houses to his fellow. But if he initially rented it with this intention—it is considered two houses, and it is not effective, even if one of them has a foothold in the house of his fellow." Thus far his words. That is to say, even though he alone rented it from the gentile, and the gentile does not know the second person at all, and he also did not speak with the lessor at all about renting it for another person, nevertheless, since they spoke between themselves that one would rent and both would dwell—there is no advantage here for one over the other, and a foothold is not effective. It is only when he rented it for himself alone, and afterward rented out some room or house—he is considered the landlord, and a foothold is effective.

The sages taught in the Mishnah: Five groups that spent the Shabbat in one hall—one eruv for all of them. But when some of them dwell in rooms or in upper stories—they require an eruv for each and every group. And we explain in the Gemara that we are dealing with a case where there are partitions between each and every group that do not reach the ceiling, which are ten tefachim high, only they do not reach the ceiling, and therefore one eruv for all of them. But partitions that reach the ceiling, or are less than three tefachim close to the ceiling, which is considered like lavud—they require an eruv for each and every group. And this is not what was taught: "When some of them dwell in rooms or in upper stories," for here they are not complete partitions, but rather temporary partitions like curtains. Nevertheless, since they reach the ceiling—they require an eruv for each and every group, (Tosafot 72b, s.v. 'bimchitzot') and so it is explained in the Yerushalmi, see there.

And the explanation of the matters: that this traklin belongs to one who is not here, and he does not forbid, for a residence without owners is not called a residence. Therefore, these five groups who spent the Shabbat in it, even though they are guests—they forbid one another, since there are no owners, and each group made between itself and the other group a light partition of curtains ten tefachim high, and they do not reach the ceiling, for if they were lower than ten tefachim, they would all be like one room. And there is no novelty in this, but rather even if they are ten tefachim high, since they do not reach the ceiling, they are all like one room. And it is dealing with a case where they do not pass through one another's area, for if so, they would all be like a gatehouse, but rather each one has an entrance to the courtyard. (Rashi) And in the Yerushalmi it is stated that the traklin is for them like a courtyard, see there, and certainly it is so, for in the traklin they all have authority over it.

This is the wording of the Rambam, chapter 4, law 7: Five groups who spent the Shabbat in one hall, if there were partitions reaching the ceiling separating each group—behold, each group among them is as if they are in a room of their own or in an upper story of their own; therefore, they require bread from each and every group. And if the partitions do not reach the ceiling—one loaf for all of them, for they are all considered like the members of one household. Thus far his words. And this deals with a case where there are residents in the courtyard, for if not so, "one loaf for all of them" would not be relevant, since there is no need for an eruv at all. And it is not understood according to this, why the Mishnah had to say "at a time when some of them dwell in rooms or in upper stories," it should have taught a greater novelty, that even with only partitions reaching the ceiling, there is an eruv for each and every group.

But our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, inferred from the sugya of the Shas (starting with the words "But") that there is a difference between them: for if it is only with partitions that reach the ceiling—the law is not that they require eruv for each group, unless they brought their eruv to some house in the courtyard. But if the eruv came to them—each group does not require an eruv, for they are considered like one house. For since we hold that the house in which the eruv is placed does not need to provide bread, as written in siman 366, therefore they are all like one person, for the entire hall is one house. But in complete rooms and upper stories, even when the eruv comes to them—each and every group requires an eruv. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3 followed this path; see there. And consequently, when there are no other residents in the courtyard, with partitions that reach the ceiling—no eruv is required at all. But in complete rooms and upper stories—even in such cases they require an eruv. And they further wrote, that if they all pass through one another—none require an eruv except the two innermost ones, and all those before them are like a gatehouse. And the one before the innermost requires an eruv because it is a gatehouse of an individual, and according to the system of the Rambam that we cited in section 2, a gatehouse of an individual prohibits; see there. But when each one has an opening to the courtyard, and they do not pass through one another, or each one has an opening open to the gatehouse before them, and the gatehouse is open to the courtyard—each group requires an eruv, in the case of partitions that reach the ceiling. And if some of them made partitions that reach the ceiling and some did not reach them, those that reach—they are divided, and each requires an eruv, and those that do not reach—they are like partners, and they all provide only one eruv. (See Taz subsection 2 and it requires further study. In my humble opinion, the words of the Bach are correct; see there and examine it closely.)

And we have a great question regarding this: why did the Tanna need to depict this law in the case of five groups who spent the Shabbat in one salon? Since the primary distinction is between partitions that reach the ceiling and those that do not reach it, he should have taught it regarding five who dwelt in one house—if they do not reach the ceiling, there is no need for an eruv, and when there are other residents, one eruv suffices for all of them. And if they reach the ceiling, each one requires an eruv. And certainly, this was not for naught. And it appears, in my humble opinion, that specifically regarding those who only spent the Shabbat there do we say this; but in actual dwellings, even partitions that do not reach the ceiling require an eruv for each one. For specifically in temporary dwellings and temporary partitions are they considered as one, but in permanent dwellings and temporary partitions, it is like temporary dwellings and permanent partitions, where each and every group requires an eruv, as he taught there.

We have learned in the Tosefta (Chapter 5): "Five groups, some residing in rooms and some in upper stories—their salon is like a courtyard to the houses." Thus far its words. This means that in the salon, everyone has a share in it, and therefore if they did not make an eruv between them—they are forbidden to carry from their rooms to the salon, just as from a house to a courtyard when they did not make an eruv. And one may learn from this regarding our situation in the large cities, where each one dwells in his own rooms and there is one large room like a salon, which they call a "saal," which everyone uses, if they did not make an eruv between them—they are forbidden to carry from their rooms to the large room, and from one's room to the room of his fellow. However, if they eat in one place, or they have one kitchen, which they call a "kuchnia"—it is permitted, as has been written in siman 366.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote at the end of section 3: "But one who has a teacher or a scribe in his house, and similarly students who study before the teacher and dwell in his house, each one in his room, even if each has a door opening to the courtyard and eats and sleeps in his room—they do not prohibit." Thus far their words. Meaning, a homeowner who gives permission to a teacher or a scribe to be in his house, and lends him one room and he eats of his own, and eats in his room, and uses the homeowner's property for all baking and cooking vessels—there is no need for an eruv; and similarly students in their teacher's house in such a manner, for the reason that since they use the whole house for matters of baking and cooking, they are all considered as if they eat in one place. However, this is a weak reason, but there is an additional reason for this, that he does not lend them his domain to prohibit upon him, for the homeowner does not take rent from them but gives to them for free, and it is like a loan, and he does not lend to them so that they should prohibit upon him, and they are nullified to him, and they are all like one. Therefore, if they truly rent a room from him and pay money, and eat and drink by themselves, even though they use the household vessels for eating and drinking—they prohibit upon him, and they require an eruv, (this is the intention of the Taz, subsection 6, and Magen Avraham, subsection 8) and see what I wrote in siman 382, section 27.

Residents of a courtyard who were all eating in one room, even though each one has a house of his own—they do not require an eruv, because they are like the residents of one house. And if they were required to make an eruv with the residents of another courtyard—one eruv suffices for all of them, meaning they bring only one loaf of bread to that place where they are making the eruv. And if the eruv was coming to them, meaning they place the eruv in this courtyard—they do not need to provide an eruv at all, according to the law of a house in which the eruv is placed, which does not need to provide bread, and all these houses are considered as one house, for regarding an eruv the primary factor is the place of eating.

And so too, if many homeowners eat in one room, each at his own table, even though each one sleeps in a room of his own, and also drinks there regularly and eats casual meals there, nevertheless—they do not require an eruv, since they eat their established meals in one room. And even though they eat there each at his own table, and occasionally they also spread a light partition between table and table for modesty—it is not called a partition, since the partition is not there permanently. And all the more so when the partition does not reach the ceiling, and it is like "five who spent the Shabbat in a salon," where it was explained that this does not have the status of a partition or a separation, since it is not permanent, and it is only made when they wish to do something of modesty and the like.

And behold, according to what has been explained, one who eats in one place and sleeps in another place—the place of his eating is the primary location, and there he prohibits. But in the place where he sleeps, he does not prohibit. Therefore, brothers who were eating in their father's house and sleeping in their own houses do not prohibit, and they are all considered as one. And if they receive a stipend from their father's house, meaning that he gives them bread or money to buy bread and they eat in their own houses, they are neither like one nor like separate individuals. This is when there are no other residents with them in the courtyard, or even if there are residents but they place the eruv with them—they do not need to give a portion in the eruv, according to the law of a house in which the eruv is placed, for they are all considered as one. However, if they take the eruv to another house, each one must give his portion in the eruv. And so too if they make an eruv with another courtyard, the law is such. And the reason for the matter is that regarding one who receives a stipend, there is reason to say that he eats from that which belongs to the one who gives to him, and he is nullified to him; and there is reason to say that since he eats by himself, he is like a domain unto himself. And it is simple that specifically a son who receives a stipend, and similarly one who had five wives and five servants receiving a stipend from him and each one eats in his house, and similarly a student who receives a stipend from his teacher and eats in his house—they do not prohibit one another if there are no other residents with them, or when the eruv comes to them, as has been explained. But a stranger who receives a stipend for his work or for another reason is like a homeowner unto himself, and they prohibit one another.

A guest up to thirty days—does not prohibit for the homeowner or for the residents of the courtyard, and more than thirty days he is called one of the residents of the courtyard. (Bava Batra 8a). Therefore, one who is a guest in a courtyard, even if he is a guest in a house by himself, if he is not a guest in a permanent manner but rather for thirty days or less—he does not prohibit for the homeowner or for the residents of the courtyard, and he and they are permitted to carry, whether from their house to the courtyard or from his house to the courtyard, and from his house to their house and from their house to his house. And in a city where there is a general eruv for the entire city, even if guests come to the city and settle there for more than thirty days—there is no need for an eruv, for the heart of the beit din stipulates concerning them, as I wrote in siman 366. (Taz, subsection 10)

And this, that the guest does not prohibit until thirty days, this is when there is a permanent homeowner to whom the inn belongs, who bought it or rented it, for then even when there are many guests—they do not prohibit him nor one another, for they are all nullified to the homeowner. But when there is no homeowner there, such as if the homeowner dwells in another courtyard—the guests prohibit one another, and this is the law of "five who spent the Sabbath in a hall," which has been explained—and they prohibit one another immediately, when each one has a specific room where he eats, and if they all eat in one room—they do not prohibit one another. And if there is a gentile in the courtyard—they must rent the domain, and a gentile guest—does not prohibit until thirty days, and it will be explained in siman 384. (The Even Ozer lengthily disagreed with the Shulchan Aruch and holds that the guest prohibits the homeowner immediately, see there, and we have only the words of the Shulchan Aruch and so we rule in practice.)

Ten houses, one inside the other, and they all pass from one to the other and exit through the outermost one to the courtyard or to the street - only the two innermost ones must contribute to the eruv and the rest are exempt, for they are all considered like a gatehouse, and the reason we have already explained in section 12.