Siman 391

There is nullification of domain in a מבוי just as in a courtyard, and all the laws of nullification that were explained in siman 380 regarding a courtyard for one who forgot and did not make an eruv in his courtyard, so too any courtyard that forgot and did not join in the shituf of the מבוי, or that willfully did not join—it nullifies its domain to the rest of the residents of the מבוי. And it can nullify only its domain in the מבוי and not its domain in the courtyard, and then they will be forbidden to carry from its courtyard to the מבוי; or if they wish—it can also nullify the domain of its courtyard, and they will be able to carry also from its courtyard to the מבוי, and to their courtyards and their houses. And just as in a courtyard, the one who nullifies can also carry because he is considered like a guest to them, so too in a מבוי—the courtyard that nullifies its domain can also carry. And even though they are many, and it was explained there that many do not become guests, nevertheless a courtyard regarding a מבוי—all the residents of the courtyard are considered like an individual, just like a house regarding a courtyard, for even if they are two in one room—they are considered like an individual, and so it is with a courtyard regarding a מבוי. And just as there all the residents of the courtyard can nullify to this one who did not make an eruv, if there is a need for this, as I wrote there, so too all the courtyards can nullify their domain to this courtyard that did not join in the shituf of the מבוי, and then if they made an eruv in the courtyard—they can carry from the courtyard and from their houses to the מבוי, and the courtyards are forbidden, for many regarding an individual do not become guests. But if they did not make an eruv in the courtyard—there is no benefit in the nullification to them, for behold they forbid one another. However, when they made an eruv in the courtyard—it is possible to nullify to them. And even though they did not join in the shituf of the מבוי, and they should have been considered many who did not join in a shituf, and one does not nullify to two who did not make an eruv as I wrote there—we do not say so, for a courtyard regarding a מבוי—is considered like an individual. And they also can nullify to it only their domain in the מבוי, or also their courtyards, and the law will be like there in a courtyard. (The Taz in subsection 1 labored over what was written 'even though they are many', and his explanation is puzzling, for what does it come to teach us? But the truth is that regarding the מבוי it should have been considered like many who did not make an eruv, and one does not nullify to two who did not make an eruv; it comes to teach us that they are like an individual, and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 1)

And just like all the laws that apply to a courtyard with a kutei, that he does not forbid until there are two Israelite houses that forbid one another—so too in a mavoi and in a city, that if there are two Israelite courtyards that forbid one another, then the courtyard of a kutei forbids, and they must rent the domain from him. But if there is only one Israelite courtyard, he does not forbid. And even though there are many houses in the courtyard and it is common for people to dwell there, and we should have forbidden it—nevertheless, they are considered as one, for just as a house is to a courtyard, so too a courtyard is to a mavoi and a city, for the sages did not differentiate in their enactment. And when renting the domain from the courtyard of the kutei, it seems to me that they must rent specifically from the owner of the courtyard, or from his hired hand, his laborer, or his wife, but not from one of the neighbors of the courtyard. For even though in a house in these cases, when they dwell in one room, they are considered like his hired hand and his laborer, as I wrote in siman 380, and we have a general rule that a courtyard regarding a mavoi is like a house regarding a courtyard, however, in this matter one perforce cannot compare them to one another, for how can we consider him like his hired hand and his laborer since he has no connection to him? Rather, certainly, the rental is only from the owner of the courtyard, or from his wife, or from the one appointed over the courtyard, who certainly has the status of his hired hand and his laborer. And if the owner of the courtyard does not dwell here, and his wife and members of his household are also not here, and he also has no one appointed over the courtyard, it seems to me that they must rent from all the homeowners in the courtyard who rented the courtyard from the owners.

In a city that is entirely Cutheans—it is permitted to carry throughout the entire city, if there is a wall around the city and it is enclosed for habitation, meaning that first the city was settled and afterwards they enclosed it, to exclude "enclosed and subsequently settled"—it is not considered enclosed for habitation, as I wrote in siman 358. The early authorities wrote that generally cities are enclosed for habitation, for first they build the houses and afterwards they enclose the city, and generally fortresses are not enclosed for habitation, for first they enclose and afterwards they build the houses. And if there are two courtyards of Israelites there—they must lease the rights of the city, as will be explained. And this was in their time, but now the cities are not enclosed at all, and it is forbidden to carry in any city and in any metropolis and in any village in the streets and in the marketplaces. And only in the courtyard of the Cuthean is it permitted to carry. And now in cities where they make an eruv by means of tzurot hapetach, and behold there are many houses and many courtyards of non-Jews—they must lease the rights of the city, and it will be explained before us from whom they lease the rights.

The Tur wrote: That one must rent from each and every courtyard of a non-Jew, and it is not sufficient to rent from the governor of the city. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained, and this is his wording: "To what do these words apply? To a governor who does not own the houses, and also does not have permission to use the houses of the city at all, even not during a time of peace. But in a place where all the needs of the city are not done except by the authority of the governor or his appointee—certainly renting from him or from his hired hand or his gatherer is effective, for he has the authority to settle his men in the houses of the city's residents without their knowledge when there is a need for it." See there. And according to this, now that by the decree of the Emperor, may his glory be exalted, there are in each and every city administrative offices that oversee the matters of the city and all its needs, which they call Uprava, and by their decree the construction of houses and courtyards is done, and they are the owners of the markets and the streets—one can rent from the head of the city administration or from his hired hand or his gatherer; but regarding the courts of law or the police station—this matter is not relevant. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the words of the Tur are only regarding carrying out and bringing in to the domain of a non-Jew, but to carry in a mavoi—one can rent from the governor, for the path of the mavoi belongs to the governor, and it is within his power to remove all who dwell there. Thus far his words. And now this is not relevant, and therefore now the rental is from the city administrative office. And in the small towns, there is in every place some appointee from the government to whom all matters of the city are directed, and he delivers them to the district city—and one rents from him or from his hired hand or his gatherer. And when he has some Jew who is like his hired hand or his gatherer—one rents from him, and then it is permitted to carry in the entire city and also in the courtyards of the non-Jew, for the entire city becomes like one courtyard.

Israelites who dwell in a courtyard alone in a city where all the others are not Jewish, and it is surrounded by a wall in a manner that it is permitted to carry in the entire city, as has been explained, and several Jews passed through there on Friday and stayed for Shabbat and were lodged in a different courtyard—they do not prohibit them, for a guest does not prohibit, and they are permitted to carry in the entire city. And until when is one called a guest—until thirty days, as is written at the end of siman 370, see there. (What the Magen Avraham wrote in the name of the Rashal regarding the Lublin fair, and what the Shevut Yaakov wrote in the name of several responsa regarding the matter of Jewish streets—is not relevant in this time, obviously, and therefore we have not spoken of this, and we have explained according to the custom, and examine this well.)