Siman 392

In this siman it will be explained that even though the sages permitted merging the entire city—nevertheless, there are cities where it is necessary to leave over some houses that will not be included in the general eruv, and they may make an eruv for themselves if they wish. However, it will be forbidden to carry from there to the city, and from the city to there. The reason for the leaving over is so that they will know that it was through the eruv that it was permitted for them to carry, and the proof is that the houses that were not included in the general eruv—it is forbidden to carry to there, and from there to here. If they do not make a leaving over—they will completely forget that it is forbidden to carry and to take out on Shabbat from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim, and they will completely forget the prohibition of taking out. This applies specifically to a city of many, and not to a city of an individual, as will be explained. The definition of "of many" according to the Rif and the Rambam is, for example, that it is the property of many and does not belong to an individual. And "of an individual"—this is when an individual built the city for himself, that he should rent it to many or that he sold it afterwards to many, or that he built it to settle residents in it, and he leaves over for himself the paths and the main roads and the plazas. (Magen Avraham subsection 1 in the name of the Maggid Mishneh chapter 5) And according to this—a city of an individual is not common among us at all.

Many have wondered why we do not practice this, as we make an eruv for our cities without any remainder, and this is against the Mishnah (59a) and the Gemara and all the poskim. There is one who answered that we rely on the explanation of Rashi, of blessed memory, who explained a "city of many" as one that has six hundred thousand people. (Magen Avraham, subsection 2) And there is one who wrote that we rely on the one who holds that the houses of non-Jews are considered as a remainder, (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 2) and the difficulty is evident. And it seems to me that there is no basis for this question, for that which the sages required a remainder was in their cities which were surrounded by a wall around the city, and nothing was lacking there except the eruv, and in that case a remainder is needed for a reminder as has been written. But in our cities which are not surrounded by a wall, and it is forbidden to carry in the city, except that we make it as if surrounded by means of tzurat hapetach, and when one of the tzurat hapetach is damaged they announce that it is forbidden to carry—if so, you have no greater reminder than this, and everyone sees the tzurat hapetach at all ends of the city, and that immediately after the tzurat hapetach it is forbidden to take out, and you have no greater reminder than this. (And furthermore, without a wall enclosure, there is no specific house at the edge of the city, and automatically there are houses after the tzurat hapetach, and they are the remainder.)

The sages taught in the Mishnah: (59a) A city of an individual that became a city of many, meaning even if it became a city of many—they may make an eruv for the whole of it without a remainder. This is specifically when it is surrounded by a wall on all sides, even if there are many openings in the wall. For in a city that was of an individual—they will not come to err, as there is no prohibition of carrying. However, a city of many, even if it subsequently became a city of an individual—they may not make an eruv without a remainder. This is specifically when there are at least two openings in the surrounding wall, one in the east and one in the west, or in the south and north, for since it has two openings where they enter through this one and exit through that one—it resembles a reshut harabim, and they will come to err. But if there is only one opening in the entire wall—a remainder is not required, for they will not err in this, as everyone sees that the entire city is like a single courtyard.

And how much is the remainder—even only one house and one courtyard from which they will not carry to the city, and consequently there is a distinction in this, and the entire city joins in the shituf. And all of them are permitted in the entire city, except for that place of the remainder. And if there were many houses and courtyards in the remainder—they may make an eruv for themselves by way of the openings between them, and they may carry among themselves from courtyard to courtyard by way of the openings between them, but in the city—they are forbidden. And the people of the city—are permitted in the entire city, and are forbidden in their place.

The enactment of this matter is for the sake of a distinction, so that they will know that the eruv permitted them to carry in this city where everyone passes through. And the proof for this is that the place that remains and did not join with them—they do not carry from it, but rather these carry for themselves and those carry for themselves. And if they wished to make an eruv for each mavoi individually—it certainly is effective, for you have no greater remainder than this, as they will see that they do not carry from mavoi to mavoi. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in this case they must make between them two strips of any small size, if it is ten amot wide. And in more than ten—it requires a tzurrat hapetach. Thus far his words. Meaning, even though for a mavoi a lechi or a korah is sufficient—this is in a city that has only mevaot and a reshut harabbim. But in such a city that is surrounded by a wall, which is capable of being joined in its entirety—it is entirely like one chatzer, and in a chatzer two strips are required. However, that which he wrote that in more than ten it requires a tzurrat hapetach—he mentioned this incidentally, for in more than ten—even in a mavoi a tzurrat hapetach is required, as is known. (The Magen Avraham, subsection 4, raised a difficulty that Rashi explained that this is only in a city of an individual where they were accustomed to being one, as they would join it all together, and how did he write this regarding a city of many? See there. And it seems to me that indeed the Tosafot there, in the heading starting with "Mavoi," challenged Rashi from the case of one who made a lechi for half a mavoi, for this half was permitted even though they were accustomed to being together; see there. Therefore, he explained that even in a city of many it is so, for if they are only able to join it all with a remainder—its law is like a chatzer. And so it is explicitly implied from the Rosh and the Tur who wrote this regarding the remainder; see there. And what the Magen Avraham wrote, that this is when the remainder is in the middle of the mavoi—I do not know from where he has this. And Rashi, who explained this, did so because this case of each mavoi individually was stated in the Gemara regarding a city of an individual, but it is obvious that even in a city of many it is so, and follow the reasoning and examine it closely.)

According to what has been explained—there is no need for a shiur in an enclosure of the public, except when the wall surrounding the entire city has two entrances. But if there is only one entrance—it does not require a shiur. And according to this, according to what was written in siman 372, that a ladder—the law of an entrance applies to it, there would be room to say that if on one side of the city there is an entrance and on the other side a ladder four wide from here and a ladder four wide from the other side—it is like two entrances, and requires a shiur. But it is not so, for it has already been explained there that only to be lenient does the law of an entrance apply to it, and not to be stringent. Therefore, even if he placed many ladders one next to the other until a width of ten or more—it is not considered like an entrance, and does not require a shiur. And similarly, even if it has two entrances, but at one entrance there is a dung heap before it that is ten tefachim high—it is as if the entrance was closed and does not require a shiur. And even if the dung heap belongs to an individual, where we concern ourselves that it might be removed from here, as was written in siman 363, nevertheless here regarding the matter of a shiur which is a mere concern—it was permitted without a shiur as long as it stands, and if they remove it—they shall make a shiur. Or perhaps, "since it was permitted—it remains permitted," for behold there is no change in the partitions in this. (See Magen Avraham subsection 6)

The houses that they leave for a shiyur, even though their entrances do not face the city but rather their backs are to the city and their fronts are outside the city—nevertheless, it constitutes a shiyur. And even when they leave only one house that is in this manner—it constitutes a shiyur. And even if it is not a house for dwelling, but rather a cattle shed or a straw storehouse which does not require an eruv—nevertheless, they make it a shiyur, and they establish an eruv for the entire city, because the sages commanded this only as a mere reminder, and they were lenient regarding the quality of the house, for as a reminder—any house whatsoever is sufficient. However, this is specifically when it has a courtyard, for a house without a courtyard is nothing, and does not constitute a reminder at all.

There are those who say that the exclusion must only be from the houses of Israel. (Magen Avraham, subsection 3 in the name of the Rivash) And the reasoning is so, for if not so—it is not a recognition in that these will not carry into the city, as is understood. And there are those who say that it is effective, (ibid. in the name of the Responsa of the Ran) and in the Yerushalmi it is explained according to the first opinion, and it must be said that the recognition is in that the residents of the city will not carry to there. However, if the exclusion is from the houses of Israel—one must make there a recognition and a sign, so that it does not prohibit for the residents of the city, (Be'er Heitev in the name of Ginat Veradim) and that is like a small partition, as will be explained regarding the exclusion of a mavoi. And in the Tur he wrote to make a tzurath ha-petach or two strips, see there.

The Rambam wrote at the end of chapter 5: "A province (a city) where all its inhabitants joined in a partnership except for one alleyway—this one prohibits all of them. And if they built a structure (a partition) at the entrance of the alleyway—it does not prohibit them. Therefore, one does not make an eruv for a province in halves, but rather either the whole of it, or alleyway by alleyway, and each and every alleyway builds a structure at its entrance, if it wishes to divide its domain from them, so that it does not prohibit the other alleyways." Thus far his words. And for halves, even a partition is not effective, for it is not effective in a place where the public treads. (Ra'avad) And the reason is as we have explained, that even though in every alleyway nothing is required—this refers to a city that is entirely alleyways, with a public domain within it, and it is not surrounded by a wall. But in a city surrounded by a wall, which is entirely like a single courtyard—every alleyway prohibits its fellow, for it is like half a courtyard. Therefore, a slight partition is required, to show that they have withdrawn from all the other alleyways. And it is possible that even two posts or a tzurat hapetach would be effective, and certainly it is so, and like the words of our teacher, the Rema, which we cited in section 5. And the Gemara and the Rambam mentioned a "structure" as a greater novelty, for it is only a slight partition of four tefachim in height, as is explained in the Rif and the Rosh, and all the more so posts of ten tefachim are effective, even if their thickness is minimal. (And so it appears explicitly from the Magen Avraham, subsection 7, see there.)

And behold, the Rambam did not mention any distinction between a city of an individual and one of many when they make an eruv for all of it by means of a remainder. And now, regarding that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "A city where all its inhabitants joined in a partnership except for one alleyway—it prohibits all of them. But if they built a structure at the entrance of the alleyway—it does not prohibit them. Therefore, a city that was the property of an individual and became one of many—they may not make an eruv for it in halves, but rather either all of it etc." Thus far his words, and it is like the wording of the Rambam. But who compelled him to add to the wording of the Rambam that it refers to a city of an individual, for the Rambam did not mention anything of this, and also from the Tur this is not proven, see there, and also there is no reason for the matter. And it appears to me that even our teacher, the Beit Yosef, only intended to clarify the language regarding that which we say "they may not make an eruv in halves." For surely in a city of many they must perforce make an eruv in halves, since they are required to make a remainder, and there is no fixed measure for the remainder, and perforce they are divided. Therefore, he clarified the language that this applies to a city of an individual even though it became one of many. But aside from the remainder, they all have one law, and behold, even for the remainder we have explained that a recognizable sign is required.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: "When are these matters stated, that they may not establish an eruv for it in halves? In a city surrounded by a wall ten tefachim high, and it has doors. But if the entire city was not rendered fit by partitions, and they came to render half of it fit and establish an eruv for it—the authority is in their hands." Thus far his words. And the reason is simple, for the primary reason for the prohibition is because it is like one courtyard, as has been written, and this is only with a perimeter of a wall and doors. He further wrote in section 6, that that which we said, that they may not establish an eruv for it in halves—this is to say that a lechi and a korah are not effective to remove them from one another. But with a post of four [tefachim] or with two posts of any size—these are divided from those, and they may establish an eruv in halves. And if it is wider than ten amot—he makes a tzurath hapetach. Thus far his words. And a matzevah will also not be effective for halves, as has been written in section 9. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was not concerned to mention it, for it is understood of itself, and all the more so if he makes a partition ten high for the entrance of his mavoi—that it is effective, for this is better than all the other things.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6: "Some say that this which was said, that a city of an individual is forbidden to be divided—this is specifically lengthwise, since both of them must walk to the public path that is within it. But widthwise, where these exit through this gate and those exit through that gate, and they have no right of passage over one another—they may establish an eruv in halves and make a rectification between them, as written in siman 363, that up to ten [cubits] a lechi or korah is effective, and for more than ten—a tzurath hapetach." Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of the Tur, and this matter is in the Gemara there. And the explanation of the matters is that this which we forbid to divide them—it is not only because it is like one courtyard, for because of that we would not forbid it. Rather, the primary reason is because, perforce, in the middle of the city there is a public path. And it is not a literal reshut harabim, for behold it is surrounded by a wall and has doors, for if not so—regardless, it is permitted to establish an eruv for part of it, as has been written. And consequently, when they divide lengthwise, this one on the side of the public path from the right and that one from the left—perforce, through this path of the public both of them will walk and they will forbid one another. And even though each one is a "foot that is permitted in its own place," and it does not forbid when not in its own place, like an inner courtyard regarding an outer one in siman 378, this is because the primary outer courtyard belongs to the residents of the outer one, and therefore the inner one does not forbid when it is permitted in its own place. But this public path, which is not designated for one of them—they forbid one another. (Magen Avraham, subsection 10) But widthwise—these will remove themselves from the public path on this side, and those will remove themselves from this side. But the Rif and the Rambam disagree on this, because in the Gemara there are two versions, and according to one version even widthwise it is forbidden, because it is impossible to remove oneself from the public path. Furthermore, they hold that the primary reason is because it is like one courtyard, and if so, there is no difference between lengthwise and widthwise. (And that which the Rema wrote "reshut harabim," his intention was a public path.)

And know, that everyone raised a difficulty against our teacher, the Rema, who wrote to make a lechi or a korah, for here we are dealing with a case where there is an enclosure and doors, and if so, the heads of the alleys do not require rectification; rather, in the place where they divide, the Tur wrote that they should make a tzorat hapetach (Magen Avraham subsection 11, Eliyah Rabbah, and Tosefet Shabbat), and they rejected his words. And in my humble opinion, it appears that he spoke well, and his intention was not regarding the place where they divide, which requires a tzorat hapetach, but rather his intention was that if they divide along the width, and there they also wish to make individual alleys for themselves—in this case, one certainly requires a lechi or a korah to divide alley from alley. And know, that there is one who is uncertain regarding a city of many whose doors are locked at night, whether it has the law of a city of an individual (ibid. subsection 9) regarding the matter of leaving a remainder. And in my humble opinion—there is no doubt that it certainly requires a remainder, since the reason is so that it will not be forgotten that the eruv permits them, what does it matter to me if they are locked at night or if they are not locked.

It is stated in the Gemara there, that a city of many people that was reduced until fifty dwellings—its law is like that of an individual, and it does not require a remainder. (And Rashi and Tosafot explained that a city of an individual is not the property of an individual, and that of many is not the property of many, but rather that of an individual is when there are not sixty ribbo there, and that of many is when there are sixty ribbo there, see there. And it is not understood according to this that which they said in the Gemara that on Sabbath morning they are also found there, see there; is it possible that there are sixty ribbo? And likewise by the Reish Galuta, is it possible there were sixty ribbo? See there. And it must be said that it was mentioned only as an example, see there well.)

One who grants a share in the shituf to all the residents of the city, if they all made one eruv—there is no need to inform them, for it is a benefit for them. However, when they are divided—it is necessary to ask to which place he desires. And the law of one who forgot and did not participate in the shituf with the residents of the city, or one who went to spend the Shabbat in another city, or a non-Jew who is with them in the city—the law for all of them is like a chatzer and like a mavoi.