Siman 374

It has already been explained several times that concerning Shabbat, since it was permitted, it remains permitted. That is to say, if at the onset of Shabbat the matter was in a state of permissibility, even though the permissibility was subsequently spoiled, we say "since it was permitted, it remains permitted." And it is understood that this does not apply to a complete change of partitions, such as if the partition between a reshut hayachid and a reshut harabim fell; would we also say in such a case "since it was permitted, it remains permitted"? It is obvious that there is no logic to say so. Rather, we say this in a place where no great change was made to the partitions, or where it does not concern the partitions at all, as will be explained with the help of Heaven, and so it is explained in the Gemara. (The end of the first chapter regarding this matter of "since it was permitted, it remains permitted," says there: Rabbi Yosei only said this where the partitions are not present, etc., see there.)

Therefore, two people who had a doorway or a window between them and made an eruv between them, and the doorway or window became blocked on Shabbat, and they are no longer open to one another—nevertheless, they are permitted to carry from this one to that one through holes and cracks between them, for since it was permitted, it remains permitted; and likewise, they are permitted to carry over the top of the wall. And similarly, if there was a wall between two courtyards, and each one made an eruv for itself, and the wall was breached on Shabbat—they are permitted to carry, each one in his courtyard, even vessels that were in the house at the start of Shabbat, for "since it was permitted, it remains permitted." And even though this is a change in the partition—this is not a partition that separates between distinct domains, such as between a reshut hayachid and a reshut harabim or between a reshut hayachid and a karmelit, but rather between a reshut hayachid and a reshut hayachid, and it is as if there is no change in the partitions here. But if the courtyard was actually breached into a reshut harabim or into a karmelit—it is forbidden, and we do not say in this case "since it was permitted, it remains permitted," and if the courtyard was breached into a karmelit—it also becomes like a karmelit. However, there is a side of leniency in this, for it is permitted to carry two amot in the courtyard and two amot in the karmelit. And some say that even this is forbidden, for to be stringent, it has not lost the status of a courtyard (Magen Avraham, subsection 3), and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book wrote that it is permitted, see there. (And in the Tosefot Shabbat, subsection 6, he wrote that this is a dispute between Rashi, Eruvin 24a, and Tosafot, Shabbat 9, see there.)

And know that regarding this case where one made an eruv by way of a doorway and the doorway became blocked, where it was explained that they are permitted to carry as before from courtyard to courtyard by way of holes and cracks and over the wall, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1 that according to the Rambam, it is only permitted to carry within each courtyard for itself, but not from courtyard to courtyard. And the novelty is that even though one courtyard is without an eruv, as the eruv is placed in the second courtyard—nevertheless, they are permitted to carry. This is the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 3: "Two courtyards that made one eruv by way of a doorway and the doorway became blocked—each one is permitted for itself; since it was permitted for part of the Shabbat, it is permitted for all of it." Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad disagreed with him, for regarding themselves it is unnecessary to state, but rather even from this one to that one as before the blockage, see there. And in my humble opinion, the intention of the Rambam is not so, for if it were so, he should not have said "each one is permitted for itself," since the novelty is only in the courtyard that does not contain the eruv. Rather, the intention of the Rambam is according to the substance of the matter: that they placed an eruv to carry from this one to that one and now the doorway became blocked, and there is no place to carry from this one to that one. Nevertheless, the eruv remains valid, and each one is permitted for itself, meaning as before the blockage, to do all its needs in both courtyards. And if there should be found some crack through which they can carry from there to the second courtyard—it is certainly permitted, and the Rambam only divided them because they were divided perforce, and his intention was not to prohibit carrying from courtyard to courtyard.

If one made an eruv for a year and the doorway was closed up during the weekdays—the eruv is void, since it was not open at the onset of the Shabbat. However, if it was reopened during the weekdays—it is a valid eruv. And we do not say that since it was closed up, the eruv is completely void. Furthermore, even if it was closed up during the weekday and opened on Shabbat—they are permitted to carry, for the essence of the eruv was not voided. And even if he closed it with the intent to nullify it as a doorway—nevertheless the eruv remains, and whenever it is opened, it returns to its fitness. There is one who says that if he broke the doorposts of the doorway—the eruv is completely void, and he requires another eruv when it is opened. (Bach) But this is not the primary view, for here it does not depend on the revelation of intent in the closing of the doorway, but rather on the time the eruv was made. (Taz subsection 1 and Magen Avraham subsection 1)

And there is one who wishes to say that in a case where it was closed intentionally, it is only effective if it was opened on a weekday, for then we say that at the onset of Shabbat this returned, and he intended it for the sake of an eruv. However, if it was opened on Shabbat, and he had intentionally nullified it as an opening, behold, he did not desire at the onset of Shabbat that the bread should be for the sake of an eruv. (Magen Avraham ibid.) For it is understandable that in a case where it was closed on its own, one can say that he thought about the eruv, that when it is opened it shall be an eruv, and he did not divert his mind at the onset of Shabbat; but not when he closed it himself. (ibid.) However, from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 1, who wrote after "and it was opened on Shabbat" — "and even if he closed it willfully," it implies explicitly that even in such a case it is permitted. And one can say regarding his reasoning, that this person who closed the opening did not intend to nullify the eruv, but rather that he did not desire this opening until it should enter his mind to open it or to make another opening. But the partnership of the bread — he never nullified.

A small yard that was breached into a large yard before Shabbat across its entire width, and there is not more than ten amot in the breach—the large one is permitted to take out vessels that rested in the house into its yard, if it made an eruv for itself, and the small one is forbidden to take out vessels that rested in the house into its yard, unless they made an eruv together. And this is specifically when the walls of the small one enter into the yard of the large one, so that everyone sees that the side-posts of the yard of the large one are not from the small one, for if not so, even the small one would be permitted by "visible from the outside and level from the inside," for one who stands outside behind the small one would see before him the side-posts, that they are also from the small one. And specifically when the walls of the small one are separated by three tefachim from the large one, for less than three is considered lavud, and they are permitted by "visible from the outside," and these laws have already been explained in siman 363, see there, and in siman 365.

And similarly, a small roof that was breached in its entirety before Shabbat into a large roof—it is forbidden to bring up onto the small one vessels that rested in the house unless they made an eruv together, and the large one is permitted when it made an eruv for itself. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 4 that this is specifically when the walls of the house of the large roof are recognizable to one who stands on the roof, which is to say that the roof goes evenly with the walls, for we say "gud asik mechitzta." But if they are not recognizable, for example if the roof protrudes over the walls—it is a karmelit, unless a window of four by four is open to it from the house. Thus far their words. And why is the roof a karmelit, for is it not a complete reshut hayachid? Rather, it is dealing with a case where the protrusion is four tefachim, which is the measure of a karmelit, and if so, the entire roof is breached in its entirety into a karmelit, and it too becomes a karmelit. (Magen Avraham, subsection 5) And if it protrudes slightly—we do not say "gud asik," but if it does not protrude—it is a complete reshut hayachid, like a pillar in a reshut harabim ten high and four wide. (ibid.) And nevertheless, when the two roofs are breached into one another—one forbids the other, (ibid.) when they do not have gipufin. (And the Maharsha at the beginning of the chapter "Kol Gagot" in the heading "Be-mechitzot" wrote that it is not because of the protrusion itself that it is a karmelit, but rather since it protrudes slightly there is no "gud asik" here, and automatically it is a karmelit; and it requires further study.)