Siman 386

The mavoi is to the courtyards as the courtyard is to the houses, for according to the Torah—it is permitted to carry from the houses and from the courtyards to the mavoi, even vessels that rested in the houses, but the sages forbade it. And this too is from the enactment of Solomon and his beit din, because the mavoi is considered a shared domain relative to the courtyards, and they decreed—on account of carrying from a public domain to a private domain. And they permitted it by means of shituf, for just as eruvei chatzerot merges all the houses of the courtyard, so too shitufei mevo'ot—merges all the courtyards of the mavoi. And why in courtyards is it called eruv and in mevo'ot it is called shituf? In order to be brief in speech and to provide a sign for what we are speaking of, for if not so, we would be required every time to say "eruvei chatzerot" and "eruvei mevo'ot." Therefore, they established the name "eruv" for courtyards and "shituf" for mevo'ot, and when "eruv" is said—we know that we are speaking of courtyards, and when "shituf" is said—we know that we are speaking of mevo'ot. Furthermore, the name shituf is more inclusive than the name eruv, and therefore in a mavoi, where the quantity is greater than the courtyard—they called it by the name shituf.

And in general, all the details of the laws are equal regarding eruv and shituf, and only in two matters is there a distinction: that an eruv is only with bread, and a shituf may be either with bread or with any food item or any drink item, as will be explained. Furthermore, an eruv is only placed in a house that is in the courtyard, and a shituf—one may place it either in a house or in a courtyard, or in a house that does not have four cubits, or in a gatehouse, provided that it is in a guarded place. And the reason is simple, for the eruv gathers all the houses of the courtyard into one house—therefore the eruv must specifically be in a house. And a shituf gathers all the courtyards of the mavoi into one courtyard, and therefore—it is sufficient when it is placed in a courtyard. And they collect bread or other types of food or drink from all the courtyards and place it in one of the courtyards, as I have written, and it will be explained in siman 395.

And know that the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, (page 73b) is that one may place the shituf in a courtyard, but in a house it is obvious that it is effective. And the Tosafot wrote there that shituf is specifically in a courtyard and not in a house, because in a courtyard it is more recognizable for the sake of shituf, as it is more related to the mavoi, and the usages are close to one another; see there. And from the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Arukh, who wrote that they may place it in the airspace of the courtyard and do not need to place it in a house—see there—it implies explicitly that they may place it in a courtyard. But in a house—it is certainly good. And so it is explained from the wording of the Rambam, chapter 1, law 17, who wrote: "How do they partner in a mavoi? They collect food... and place everything in one vessel in a courtyard of the courtyards of the mavoi or in a house of the houses, even a small house or a portico or a balcony, etc." Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly "even a small house," and all the more so a large one. And so it is explained explicitly in the Yerushalmi (Hadar, end of halacha 8) which says there: "It is obvious, eruv—requires a house; shituf—what is the law as to whether it requires a house?" And it concludes that it does not require a house; see there. Behold, it is explicit that all the more so a house, and so is the primary ruling. (The Tosafot there brought this from the Yerushalmi of 'Mi Shehotzi'uhu', but in our version it is not there but rather in 'Hadar'. And see Tosafot 71a, starting with the words 'Mishtatfin', who wrote that it implies somewhat that initially with wine it is more of a mitzvah than with bread, as it is more recognizable that it is a shituf; see there, and the poskim did not bring this.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that one should not place the shituf in the airspace of the mavoi, and so too wrote the Rambam there, that if one placed it in the airspace of the mavoi—it is not a shituf, see there. And so it is in the Gemara (85b), which says there that in any place where the sages said one may not place an eruv—one may place a shituf, except for the airspace of a mavoi, see there. And in the Yerushalmi that we cited, R. Yochanan says there that one may place it either in the airspace of a chatzer or in the airspace of a mavoi, see there; but the halacha is not so, but rather like our Gemara. And even though one could say that the reasoning of the Gemara is because it is not guarded in a mavoi, as this is somewhat implied from what it asks there—"in a mavoi it is not guarded"—and so it also seemingly appears from the language of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote that one places it in a guarded place—therefore one does not place it in the airspace of the mavoi, see there; and regarding the Yerushalmi, one could say—it is when one places it in the mavoi in a guarded place. But it does not appear so from the words of the Rambam, and also in the Gemara the explanation is that because it is not guarded—therefore it is not effective in a mavoi at all, even when one places it in a guarded place, and so it appears from Rashi there. And this is also the intention of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and thus we hold, that a shituf, when one placed it in a mavoi—is invalid.

The measure of the shituf is like the eruv, for more than two meals is not required even if they are a thousand. And consequently, less than this is also not effective. For even though regarding an eruv when there are not eighteen people a kagerogeret is sufficient, nevertheless regarding a shituf there are presumably eighteen or more. And all other matters and their laws and their halachot are like all the laws and statutes of eruvei chatzerot. And his wife may establish the shituf on his behalf, and they may establish the shituf without his knowledge if his courtyard has no opening except to this mavoi, and a minor may collect the shituf, and they may place the shituf in the courtyard of a minor, and another may acquire it on behalf of everyone. And if they were all partners in some kind of food or drink and it is placed in one location, there is no need to establish a shituf; and even if he was a partner with his neighbors, with this one in wine and with this one in oil, there is no need to establish a shituf, provided they are in one vessel. And even though regarding an eruv we permit it when the vessel was filled and they placed the remainder in another vessel, that is when they collected it for the sake of an eruv, but here where they were not placed for the sake of a shituf, we require specifically one vessel. (Rashi and Tosafot 71a.) And I saw in the name of the Rashba who wrote that anything that is not fit to be mixed together is not a connection even if they are in one vessel, (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 4) and this is implied by the plain meaning of the sugya there. (Which says wine and wine are fit to mix etc., see there.)

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 2: "Israelites dwelling in three distinct locations, and the doors of each of the locations are locked at night, and the beadle collects flour from all of them—it does not avail them to join in a shittuf, for a shittuf mavoi must be placed in a courtyard that is in the mavoi, and these who are separated from one another and distant—their shittuf is not one, and their mavo'ot are not as one. And if they made an eruv in one location—the others who did not make an eruv do not prohibit them, since they do not have the right of passage over one another, for the entire city is not considered like one mavoi, even though they dwell within the perimeter of one wall." Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matter is that the layout of their cities was not like ours, for with them the city was divided into many sections, and each of the sections was its own mavoi, and their doors were closed at night in a manner that they had no connection to one another, and the entire city was surrounded by a wall. If so, the sections cannot all join together as one, for they would place the eruv in one of the sections. If so, the other sections do not have the eruv, since they are locked at night and they are distant and separated from one another by the locking; rather, each section must join for itself. And if one section makes the shituf and one section does not make it, it would be a "foot that is forbidden in its place" and they walk through them—nevertheless they do not forbid them, for they are not forced to walk through them, as they have another path, and they are not like two chatzerot, one inside the other. And this is what they wrote, "for they do not have the right of passage," meaning—the necessary one, for they also have another path. Therefore, even when they walk, they do not forbid. And even though they sit within the perimeter of one wall—nevertheless they are not considered as one, since they are closed section by section for itself. (And see Magen Avraham subsection 3 and in Machatzit HaShekel, and in siman 392 it will be explained with the help of Heaven)

One may partner with all types of food, and even four or five types of food combine to the amount of food for two meals. And one may partner with any food and any drink, except for water by itself and salt by itself. But when they mixed water and salt together—one may partner with this, as it is like muries in which one dips bread and meat, and it is like a relish. And so too truffles and mushrooms—one may not establish an eruv with them even if they are cooked, because they are not considered like foods (the Rambam, chapter 1), because one only establishes an eruv with something that is fit to dine upon or to use as a relish for bread, and truffles and mushrooms are not dined upon and one does not use them as a relish for bread, and those who eat them are not considered people (the Ritva, beginning of chapter 3), and one who eats them as a relish—his opinion is nullified by that of all people (ibid.). And there is one who disagrees in this (the Gra, subsection 18), for they used to bring this to Shmuel at the end of the meal (Berakhot 47a)—consequently it is an important food (ibid.), and it rises to the table of kings (ibid.). And that which they said in the Gemara (beginning of chapter 3) that it is not with truffles and mushrooms—this does not refer to eruv but rather to ma'aser money, as we learned there: and they are not purchased with ma'aser money, for we require "fruit from fruit" and "grown from the ground," as is explained at the beginning of Torat Kohanim (ibid., and he wrote that in the Gemara the word "etc." was omitted, and the intention is the end of the Mishnah. And according to the Rif and the Rambam and all the poskim, we will have to say that it is indeed true that it is an important food—nevertheless, it is not used to relish bread nor to dine upon by itself, for this is among the conditions of the eruv, and examine this carefully).

Any food that is eaten as it is, such as bread from types of grain and raw meat, if they joined with it—its measure is the food of two meals. And anything that is a relish and it is the way of the people to eat their bread with it, such as cooked wine and roasted meat and vinegar and muries and olives and onion bulbs—its measure is enough to eat with it two meals, meaning this relish which will suffice for two meals of bread. If they joined with raw wine—its measure is two revi'iyot for all of them, and likewise with shekhar—two revi'iyot. Eggs—two, and one may join with them even if they are raw. And pomegranates—two, an etrog—one, and walnuts—ten, and five peaches. And a litra of vegetables—whether raw or boiled. And if it was partially cooked and not partially cooked—one may not join with it, because it is not fit for eating. And the Ra'avad disagrees with this, that this law is only regarding beets and not regarding vegetables. And a half-revi'it of spices, and a kav of dates and a kav of dried figs, and a maneh of pressed figs and a kav of apples, and hops—a handful, and moist beans—a handful, and a litra of chaziz, which is a type of vegetable. And beets, they are included in vegetables—and one may join with them. And onion leaves—one may not join with them unless they have bulbed, and the length of each leaf of them has become a zeret. But less than this—it is not food. And all these things—they are like a relish, and therefore they gave these measures for them, and likewise everything similar to them. And it has already been explained that all foods combine for the measure, and the Ra'avad disagrees in this, and he holds that this is only for eruvei techumin and not for shitufei meva'ot, and most of the poskim disagreed with him. And it appears that in a shituf—one may join even with a slice, for it is no worse than other food. And likewise any food that is not whole—one may join with it, and all the measures are the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 1.

The opinion of the Rosh and the Tur is that one may not make an eruv with spices, because this is like a condiment for roasted meat, and roasted meat itself is a condiment, for which reason its measure is enough to eat two meals with it as has been written, and we do not say "a condiment for a condiment." (Bach) Furthermore, the Rosh considers among those things with which one may not make an eruv: coriander that has hardened for seed, and kafniyot—and these are bad dates that have not fully ripened—and not with lentils, nor with wheat or barley. The Rambam did not need to enumerate them, for since they are not fit for eating as they are, it follows automatically that one may not make an eruv with them. (Beit Yosef) And that which they wrote, that with water and salt together one may make an eruv—this is not the opinion of the Tosafot, (27a, s.v. "Avel") for it is specifically when one put oil into them. And if it is difficult, let it be derived because of the oil; however, in a case where from the oil itself there is not the measure to provide a condiment for two meals, the water and the salt combine. (ibid.) And that which was explained, that with lentils one may not make an eruv—this refers to raw ones, but with cooked ones, one may make an eruv. (Bach)

The general rule is: any item with which it is customary to eat bread—its measure is enough to eat with bread consumed for two meals. And anything with which one does not eat bread—its measure is enough to eat of it by itself for two meals. Raw meat is not a liften, and therefore we require enough to eat of it for two meals. However, roasted meat is a liften, and it is sufficient for it to be enough to eat with bread for two meals. And even if there are places where, due to the abundance of meat, they eat it without bread—their opinion is nullified by that of all people. That is to say, certainly for them the measure is enough to eat of the meat for two meals, but for the rest of the world, it is not so; so it is explicitly proven in the Gemara (29b) and in Tosafot (28a, s.v. 'u-ve-Vavel'), and such is the primary ruling. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 6, was very brief.) And vinegar is a liften, and its measure is enough to dip vegetables for two meals. Similarly, cooked wine is a liften, but raw wine is not a liften, and likewise all other drinks. And they wrote that cooked wine comes for the dessert of a meal and not for dipping, and its measure is according to how they bring cooked wine for the dessert of two meals. (Magen Avraham, subsection 8, in the name of the Maggid Mishneh.) And we do not know of this, for wine is not common among us, and similarly several things we do not know.

One may join a shituf even with food that is not fit for him, if it is fit for any person, such as for a nazir—with wine, and for an Israelite—with terumah. And so too, one who vows regarding food or swears that he will not eat it—he may join a shituf with it, as I have written in siman 366, section 14 regarding eruvei chatzerot, see there. And some say that this is specifically if he swore or vowed that he would not eat it. But if he vowed or swore that he would not derive benefit from it—one may not join a shituf for him with it, and such is the law regarding eruvei chatzerot. And even though in techumin it is permitted, this is because techumin is only for the purpose of a mitzvah, as I have written in siman 415. But eruv and shituf, even though this is also somewhat like a mitzvah—nevertheless, it is optional. And some have written that it is permitted, because he did not intend to forbid benefit except in the manner of his enjoyment, and not by means of eruv and shituf. (Ibid. subsection 10 in the name of the Maggid Mishneh) And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 8 regarding the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who forbids in the case of one who vows or swears not to derive benefit, and he wrote in this wording: "And if he said, 'konam his benefit or his eating upon me'—according to everyone one may not join a shituf for him with it." Thus far his words. And his intention is not that 'konam' is according to everyone more severe than 'that I will not benefit,' but rather this is the explanation: that in 'that I will not benefit'—there are those who disagree and permit, as in techumin. However, in 'konam'—it is forbidden even in techumin, because it is similar to hekdesh, and this is the opinion of the Tur; but according to the Rambam—even in konam it is permitted in techumin. And whoever holds that eruv and shituf are similar to techumin—it is permitted even in konam. (See Magen Avraham ibid. and the Rema was brief as is his way)

If one said regarding a loaf on the eve of Shabbat: "This loaf—today it is chol and tomorrow it is kodesh"—one may establish a shituf with it. And so too regarding a konam, even according to the one who forbids in the case of a konam. But if one said: "This loaf—today I am under a konam regarding it, and tomorrow it is chol"—one may not establish a shituf with it according to the one who forbids. And so too if one said: "Today it shall be hekdesh, and tomorrow it shall be redeemed upon the coins in my house" (see Rashi 36a, s.v. "Today"). And the reason is that the time of the acquisition of the eruv is bein hashemashot, which is a doubt whether it is day or night. Therefore, when he said "today it is chol and tomorrow it is kodesh," when the time for the acquisition of the eruv arrived, the sanctity has not yet descended upon it due to the doubt. And the opposite in the case of "today it is kodesh and tomorrow it is chol"—the sanctity does not depart from it due to the doubt, for in every case of doubt, we establish it upon the status of the preceding time. The order of the shituf and its blessing will be explained in siman 395.

A courtyard that opens to two mevo'ot, and it established a shituf with each of them—and we have already explained that one person can reside in several places—therefore, he is permitted with each of them to carry from the houses of the courtyard to the two mevo'ot, and from the mevo'ot to the houses in the courtyard. However, they are forbidden to carry vessels that rested in the houses of this mavoi to the other mavoi via the courtyard. But their vessels—it is permitted to bring them to this courtyard. And we do not fear that because there will be a multitude of vessels from this one and that one in the courtyard they will come to swap them, to carry a vessel of this mavoi to the other mavoi—we do not fear this, as in siman 378 regarding courtyards, for we do not decree in such cases; see there. And if it did not establish an eruv with both of them nor with either one of them, and each mavoi established an eruv for itself, if he is accustomed with both of them to go out and enter during the weekday via them—it follows that he prohibits both of them according to the law of an inner and outer one, for the inner one prohibits the outer one because of the treading of his foot as I wrote there. And there is a question regarding this: why do we not say here that "a foot that is permitted in its own place does not prohibit in a place that is not its own" as there? For it can be said that this applies from courtyard to courtyard, for since he has a courtyard that is permitted in its own place, he cannot prohibit the courtyard through which he passes, as he has his own courtyard. But the mavoi—he prohibits, even though he is permitted in his own place in the courtyard, for this is not relevant to the mavoi, as every owner of a courtyard requires a mavoi. (So it appears in my humble opinion)

And if he is accustomed to one and not accustomed to the other, the one he is accustomed to prohibits, and the one he is not accustomed to does not prohibit. However, this is when he did not join in a shituf at all, but if he joined in a shituf with the one he is not accustomed to and did not join in a shituf with the one he is accustomed to—the accustomed one is permitted to itself, for he has uprooted himself from it by joining in a shituf with the other. And all the more so if he was accustomed to both of them and joined in a shituf with one of them—that the second is permitted, for he has removed himself from it. And if it was in another manner, namely that he did not join in a shituf with this one nor with that one, and the mavoi he is accustomed to joined in a shituf among themselves, and if he has a foothold upon them—he will ruin their shituf as he will prohibit upon them, and the second one that he is not accustomed to did not join in a shituf together, and if we push him toward them—no ruin will reach them, for even without this they did not join in a shituf. The sages said (49a) that against his will we push him toward the one he is not accustomed to for this Shabbat, so that he does not ruin it for the accustomed one, for in a case such as this we compel against the conduct of Sodom, as these benefit and he loses nothing, and he shall withdraw for this Shabbat from the accustomed one.