Siman 527

The matter of eruvei tavshilin, as it appears from Pesachim (46b): From the Torah, the needs of Shabbat are performed on Yom Tov, as it is written (Exodus 12:16): "Save that which every soul must eat." And Shabbat and Yom Tov are one sanctity, for both are called "Shabbat," and just as it is permitted to cook for that very day—it is permitted to cook for the next day (Rashi). And it was the Rabbis who issued a decree regarding it, lest they say: one may bake from Yom Tov even for a weekday. And since they required him to perform eruvei tavshilin—he has a reminder, see there. And it is similarly explained from the words of the Rambam at the beginning of the sixth chapter, who wrote: A Yom Tov that happens to be on the eve of Shabbat—one may not bake or cook from Yom Tov for Shabbat. And this prohibition is from the words of the Scribes, so that he should not come to cook from Yom Tov for a weekday. For it is an a fortiori argument: for Shabbat he may not cook, certainly for a weekday... Thus far his words. And one should not ask: Do we not maintain that preparation is from the Torah, and Yom Tov does not prepare for Shabbat, as I wrote in siman 513? For it is not so, as that refers to preparation by the hands of Heaven, such as an egg that was laid on Yom Tov and the like, and not regarding prepared foods that only require cooking and baking (Tosafot, beginning of Beitzah). And also, this is not related to that which is found in the Shas, the dispute whether Shabbat and Yom Tov are one sanctity or two sanctities, for that is regarding Rabbinic matters for eruv, and muktzeh, and nolad, and the like. But from the Torah they are one sanctity, and from the Torah the needs of Shabbat are performed on Yom Tov.

But there are some of our teachers who said that we do not hold that the needs of Shabbat are performed on Yom Tov, for the one who says so in the Gemara there does not hold of "ho'il." But for the one who holds of "ho'il" – the permission is because "since if guests were to arrive it would be fit for them," as is stated explicitly there in the Gemara. And we hold that we say "ho'il." Therefore, one who bakes from Yom Tov for a weekday does not receive lashes. And even though it is because of "ho'il," nevertheless there is at least a prohibition, but by means of eruvei tavshilin the prohibition was permitted. (Ran there, and Hagahot Maimoniyot there in the name of Tosafot and the Rabbis of France, and Sefer Mitzvot Gadol in the laws of Yom Tov. And the Rambam holds that in this Rabba and Rav Hisda did not disagree, see Beit Yosef. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

And there is a practical halachic difference between the reasons: for according to the Rambam it is permitted to cook from Yom Tov for Shabbat even close to nightfall, since from the Torah it is permitted, and he set an eruv tavshilin. But if it is because of the reason of "ho'il" – it is forbidden close to nightfall, for it is not fit for guests. And since it is forbidden from the Torah – what benefit is an eruv tavshilin? And so wrote the Smag there (and so wrote the Magen Avraham at the beginning of this siman). And according to this, one must be careful not to cook on Friday on Yom Tov close to evening. And the world is not careful in this. But in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the second chapter of Beitzah it is also explicitly stated like the Rambam, for it asks there: Is it possible: see, if by Torah law it is forbidden, does eruv tavshilin permit it (in wonderment)? Rabbi Abbahu said: By right, one should cook from Yom Tov for Shabbat. If you say so, he might also cook from Yom Tov for a weekday? Thus far his words, and this is like the Shas in Pesachim there. (And furthermore it is a wonder to me: for if it enters your mind that it is because of "ho'il", how did the Shas at the beginning of the second chapter of Beitzah not mention the primary permit of "ho'il"? And particularly since regarding "ho'il" there is a dispute. But if from the fundamental law it is permitted, it does not need to be explained. And the Shas that asks there "from where are these matters," meaning that one needs an eruv tavshilin, on the contrary, it should have asked: "how is it permitted by an eruv tavshilin?", as it asks in the Yerushalmi. But if from the fundamental law it is permitted, it already said this in Pesachim. But regarding "ho'il" – it is impossible to say so, for regarding "ho'il" there is a dispute there, and the Shas there did not decide the halacha, it should have explained in its place that the halacha is like Rabbah, that we say "ho'il". And it is further difficult for me: for if because of the reason of "ho'il" it is permitted from the Torah, if so, also for a weekday it should be so? And it is explicitly explained in the Rambam in the first chapter that from the Torah it is forbidden, but one is not lashed, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And for eruvei tavshilin, the sages relied on verses, as is explained in the Gemara at the beginning of the second chapter (15b). And regarding the reason, Rava and Rav Ashi disagreed. For Rava said it is for the sake of the Shabbat, so that one will select a fine portion for Shabbat just as for Yom Tov, so that he will not consume everything on the Yom Tov preceding Shabbat. And Rav Ashi said it is for the sake of Yom Tov, so that they will say: if for Shabbat it is forbidden to cook without eruvei tavshilin—all the more so for a weekday. And the Rosh wrote there that there is a practical difference between these reasons: for according to Rava, one specifically must set aside the eruvei tavshilin on the eve of Yom Tov, so that he will select a fine portion for Shabbat. But according to Rav Ashi, he may do it even before the eve of Yom Tov. And the halacha is like Rav Ashi, for he is a later authority. And so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 14, such as in the case of Sukkot that falls on a Thursday where one needs eruvei tavshilin for Sukkot, and for Shemini Atzeret he may set it aside before Sukkot, and rely upon it also for Shemini Atzeret, if the eruv is whole and fit for eating. And more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

And what is the meaning of the term "eruv"? The Rambam wrote there, and this is his wording: Why is it called "eruv"? Because just as the eruv that is made for courtyards and alleyways before Shabbat is for the purpose of a reminder, so that it should not enter one's mind that it is permitted to carry from domain to domain on Shabbat, so too this cooked food is for the purpose of a reminder and remembrance, so that they should not imagine that it is permitted to bake on Yom Tov that which is not eaten on that very day... Thus far his words. And according to his words, "eruv tavshilin" is only a borrowed name from "eruvei chatzerot." For there, the intent is that it mixes the domains to become as one, and this name was borrowed for here because the matter is the same, for the purpose of a reminder. But the Ra'avad explained that here too it is a term of mixing, that it mixes the Yom Tov and the Shabbat, to make them together. And also regarding techumin it is so, for it mixes the techumin where he was unable to walk, see there. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1, and this is his wording: The explanation of the matter of the "eruv" — is that he shall cook and bake from Yom Tov for Shabbat, along with what he already cooked and baked from the eve of Yom Tov for the sake of Shabbat. And it turns out that he did not begin the labor on Yom Tov, but rather finished it. Thus far his words. Meaning: that therefore it is called "eruv," because it mixes the cooked foods of Shabbat, those from before Yom Tov with those on Yom Tov, to show that on Yom Tov it is only a completion and not a beginning, for a beginning is forbidden on Yom Tov. And by this, the prohibition will be strengthened for everyone against cooking from Yom Tov for a weekday, for if for Shabbat it is forbidden — all the more so for a weekday.

Therefore, on a Yom Tov that falls on the eve of Shabbat, if one did not set an eruv tavshilin—it is forbidden to cook from the outset for the sake of Shabbat in a separate pot. For in one pot—behold, he may cook as much as he desires, and even by way of artifice as I wrote in siman 503, and only in a separate pot is it forbidden. However, he may cook several pots for Yom Tov and say that he wishes to eat from each and every pot, and he eats from every pot and leaves over for Shabbat from every pot. And by means of an eruv, he may cook from the outset for Shabbat, because of the reasons we explained. And he may set this eruv even at the doubt of darkness, like eruvei chatzerot. And if he accepted Yom Tov upon himself—it is forbidden. And "Barchu" is not considered acceptance until after the Yom Tov prayer (Taz, subsection 3). And some say that "Barchu" is considered acceptance (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and see what I wrote in siman 261. And if he is in the beit knesset and has not yet prayed Mincha, and if he goes to his house to make an eruv tavshilin the time for Mincha will pass, and if he prays Mincha the time for eruv tavshilin will pass—it is better to pray Mincha and not set an eruv tavshilin, and he shall transfer ownership of his flour to others as will be explained (ibid.).

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote that one does not make this eruv with bread but rather with a cooked food, see there. And it is clear that a cooked food alone is sufficient, and so ruled Rashi, of blessed memory (17b, s.v. "K'tanna"), and the She'iltot, and Ri, the author of the Tosafot. For even though Rabbi Eliezer says there that one may not bake except upon that which is baked, and one may not cook except upon that which is cooked, nevertheless Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with him in the Yerushalmi and said: One may bake and cook upon that which is cooked. However, the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot and Rabbeinu Tam ruled that one requires bread and a cooked food, since in the Gemara it brought only the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 2 ruled that ab initio one requires bread and a cooked food, but ex post facto a cooked food alone is sufficient, for the halacha is like the majority of the poskim.

The measure of the cooked food is a kazeit, whether for one person, for a hundred, or for thousands, whether at its beginning or at its end. That is to say: to set it at the beginning—a kazeit is sufficient. And if one set a large amount, and it was lost and a small amount remained—it is not sufficient with less than a kazeit (Gemara 16b). And consequently, also bread for one who requires bread—likewise a kazeit. And there are some of the poskim who cited the Yerushalmi: that bread is a kebeitzah, and cooked food is a kazeit (see Beit Yosef). Based on this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that there are those who require a kebeitzah for bread ab initio, and such is the custom ab initio. Thus far his words. That is to say: for ex post facto, we do not require bread at all. However, before us, this is not found in the Yerushalmi. On the contrary, Rav says there a kazeit, and Rabbi Yochanan holds even less than a kazeit, see there. And also, the Yerushalmi cited that of Rabbi Yehoshua, that cooked food alone is sufficient. However, since the poskim cited this—presumably such was their version of the text in the Yerushalmi, and one should be careful of this ab initio. And the Yerushalmi stated this according to Rabbi Eliezer, and consequently, since we act according to Rabbi Eliezer ab initio as I have written—we should do so. And it implies that regarding eruvei tavshilin—even a slice is effective, unlike eruvei chatzerot where specifically a whole loaf is required. For there it is because of the fastidiousness of neighbors, and regarding eruvei tavshilin this is not applicable.

And it is necessary that this cooked food be fit to eat with bread, such as meat, fish, eggs, and other types of cooked foods with which bread is eaten. Therefore, one does not make an eruv with daysa, called in our language "kasha." And even one who eats them with bread—his opinion is nullified, for this is like bread with bread. And so too all types of preserves that are not eaten with bread, such as "tzimes" and the like—one does not make an eruv with them. And it seems to me that a thick cooked dish of wheat or barley, and so too all types of fried items made from flour—one may make an eruv with them, for even though one does not eat them with bread, they themselves are like bread. And therefore, daysa of wheat or barley—one may make an eruv with it. So it seemed to me, but Rashi, of blessed memory, explained in Berakhot (36b): daysa of crushed wheat—consequently it is not effective. And the reason must be said because of a "mi-mah nafshakh": if the name "cooked food" is upon it—it must be the practice to eat it with bread. And if the name "cooked food" is not upon it—it is bread and is not effective. And according to this, all types of fried items and all types of "kasha"—are not effective for eruvei tavshilin. And such is the halacha.

This cooked food that they spoke of: even roasted, even over-boiled, meaning it was not cooked properly or was cooked more than necessary; even pickled in vinegar or in mustard, or pickled in water for twenty-four hours, and it is good for eating, for pickling is like cooking; and even smoked, if it is good for eating—it is like cooked. And even with light cooking such as a mere rinsing, like small fish of a type that they rinse in hot water, and this is the completion of their cooking for eating—one also fulfills the obligation with this, for the name "cooking" is upon it. And even things that are eaten raw, when one cooked them and they are used to accompany bread, such as apples and the like, if they are fit to accompany bread. And even though regarding their cooking they do not have the law of cooking, and similarly things that do not go on the table of kings like small fish, even though regarding their cooking there is no prohibition of cooking—nevertheless, for eruvei tavshilin it is considered cooking. And similarly all types of fruits and vegetables that are eaten raw, if one cooked them and it is the way to accompany bread with them—one may establish eruvei tavshilin with them.

And behold, salted food is not mentioned in the poskim, and it is explicitly clear that salted food is not effective for eruvei tavshilin. Therefore, one does not set an eruv with herring when it has not been cooked or fried. And it is worse than pickled food, for pickled food regarding prohibitions is like cooked food, whereas salted food is only like hot food. And even though for eruvei tavshilin hot food alone is sufficient, and even if it is not hot at all—like those small fish where rinsing alone makes them as if cooked—it is different there, as that is the manner of their cooking. And behold, even on Shabbat one is liable for this, as we learned in the Mishnah in Shabbat (145b). But salted food is like raw food. And nevertheless, I wonder about the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, why they did not write that one does not set an eruv with salted food? For in all matters, when they speak of pickled food, they also speak of salted food. And indeed, there is one of the great authorities who says that with salted food it is an eruv, and if one placed herring it is an eruv (Sha'arei Teshuva in the name of Chacham Tzevi). And he further wrote that whether with pickled food or with salted food—one should place it without a berakhah, and only say "with this eruv" (ibid.). And I wonder, for it is explicitly proven in the Gemara (16a) that it is not effective, as it says there, Rav said: Small salted fish are not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by a non-Jew. Rav Yosef said, and if a non-Jew roasted them—one relies on them for eruvei tavshilin, see there. And why did he not say the greater novelty, that even with the salted fish one fulfills eruvei tavshilin? And it is forced to say that he informs us that even when he roasted them they are not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by a non-Jew. And furthermore, the Tosafot (chapter "Ein Ma'amidin" 38b, beginning with the words "Fish") explain that this case of "salted" refers to when he cooked them afterward, and it is a greater novelty than roasting them. And regarding roasting—they do not have the version at all that a non-Jew roasted them, see there. And therefore the matter is clear that one does not fulfill eruvei tavshilin with salted food (and so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And with pickled food one certainly must recite a berakhah, since it is so stated in the Gemara and in the Rambam and Tur Shulchan Aruch. (Even though in the Tosefta, second chapter, pickled food is absent, see there, nevertheless, since it is explicit in the Shas—what is the Tosefta to us?)

Eruvei tavshilin – one does not need to cook a dish specifically for eruvei tavshilin from the outset, but rather even from the remnants of food – it is sufficient for eruvei tavshilin. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said (ibid.), that even on the lentils at the bottom of a pot – one may rely on them from the eve of Yom Tov for eruvei tavshilin, when there is a kezayit of it. And so too one may rely on the fat adhering to a knife, when it is fit for eating and there is a kezayit of it. And certainly it is not proper from the outset to perform a mitzvah with such remnants, but the Shas is speaking of a case where he has nothing else. However, in any event, we have heard from this that one does not require a specific dish for eruvei tavshilin.

And know that most of the world sets eruvei tavshilin with cooked meat. And when Yom Tov falls on Thursday and Friday, such that they set the eruvei tavshilin on Wednesday, it most often spoils by Shabbat, and the eruv is voided. Therefore, every person must be careful in this. And therefore we are accustomed to set it with a cooked egg, for the egg does not spoil. But the masses are not expert in this, and several times we have seen that when they go on Shabbat to take the cooked meat that they set for their eruvei tavshilin—it had spoiled greatly, and they cast it out. Therefore, one must be very careful in this.

It is a mitzvah for every person to make an eruv for himself, and not to rely on that of his fellow. Nevertheless, it is a mitzvah for the leader of the city to make an eruv on behalf of the entire city, because many people are preoccupied on the eve of a Yom Tov and forget about this entirely. And now we are accustomed to post notices in synagogues and marketplaces upon which is written "eruvei tavshilin." And through this, everyone who passes by will remember and not forget. And naturally, when one makes an eruv for others, he must grant them acquisition through another person so that it leaves his possession, as will be explained. Without this, it is not effective. Therefore, even though in the prayer books the version "With this eruv... for us and for all who dwell in this city" is printed, since he did not grant acquisition through another person, it is nothing. And this matter is incumbent upon the rabbi of the city, and through this, even if there is found someone who forgot, or was prevented by circumstances, or who set aside an eruv and it was lost, or an unlearned person who does not know how to make an eruv, or women who do not have a husband and do not know how to make an eruv—they fulfill their obligation through the eruv of the leader of the city.

But one who did not forget, and is able to make an eruv, but rather relies ab initio on the leader of the city—is called a "negligent person," and does not fulfill his obligation through it. Thus ruled the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 7, and this is from the words of the Rosh (chapter two, siman 3). And he inferred it from the incident of the blind man there (16b), who forgot twice to set an eruv tavshilin, and Shmuel called him a "negligent person," see there. And certainly one who does not forget, and relies on the leader of the city, is called a "negligent person" (so it must be said regarding the intent of the Rosh, as the Korban Netanel wrote). And it is explained in the Gemara that for a "negligent person"—relying on the leader of the city is not effective. But Rashi explained there that the intent of the leader is not for negligent people. And there is one who holds that Rashi disagrees with this ruling, since he wrote that Shmuel said his intent was not for negligent people—it is proven from this that if his intent had been so, it would be effective; and he disagrees with the ruling of the Rosh (Turei Zahav, subsection 9). And so wrote the Rashba, that if his intent was for him—it is effective (see Beit Yosef). And based on this, they wrote that the Rosh disagrees with them.

And I am astonished: for if the Rosh disagreed with Rashi—he should have cited his words and disagreed with him. In truth, there is no dispute here, for certainly the Rosh also admits that if his intention was explicitly toward him, it is effective. And why should it not be effective? And where have we found that they penalized him in this? Rather, the Rosh is saying that he does not fulfill his obligation with that of the leader of the city because, ordinarily, the intention of the leader of the city is not toward him, for his intention is not toward the negligent. And Rashi also explained thus, that Shmuel's intention was not toward the negligent. And just as Shmuel's intention was not toward the negligent, so too every leader of a city. And this is what the Rashba wrote, that if his intention was explicitly toward him, it is effective. Only this did the Rosh innovate: that just as with forgetting twice—he is considered negligent, so too when he did not forget but relies upon the leader of the city. And in this, we have not found that Rashi and the Rashba disagree with him. (However, the Ran certainly does not hold like the Rosh, for he explained "negligent" as being regarding "why did you not rely upon me," see there. And according to this, it is well understood why the Beit Yosef only cited the opinion of the Rosh, for if all these authorities disagreed—how could he not cite their opinion? And even though in the Beit Yosef it appears that he understood that they disagree, as the Taz wrote, nevertheless in the Shulchan Aruch he retracted. And the opinion of the Ran he did not cite because regarding the explanation of "negligent"—Rashi and the Rashba also do not hold like the Ran, as is understood. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

One must understand the reasoning of the Rosh: Why should we not rely ab initio on the eruv of the leader of the city? For in many matters we fulfill our obligation through others, such as kiddush and havdalah and the like. And why should we be called a "transgressor"? It is understandable that forgetting two times in succession demonstrates his laxity regarding the mitzvot, for if it were not so, when he forgot once, he should have taken it to heart and remembered. But why should we not rely ab initio on the leader? And it appears to me that, behold, two reasons have been explained regarding eruvei tavshilin: one for the honor of Yom Tov, so that they do not treat it with contempt; and one for the honor of Shabbat, so that he will select a choice portion for Shabbat and not consume everything for Yom Tov. According to this, it is well understood: for granted that for the reason of the honor of Yom Tov, so that they do not treat it with contempt, it is also effective through another to know that without this it is forbidden. But for the reason of the honor of Shabbat, that he should select a choice portion, what benefit is there in his relying on others? For he, in any event, could consume everything for Yom Tov. However, one who forgot, or one who is an am ha'aretz, is forced to rely on only one reason. But one who did not forget is certainly called a "transgressor," for he did not concern himself with the second reason.

And there is a question regarding this: Why did the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch not mention the primary principle of "one who is negligent"? For in the Gemara, when one forgot two times, as in the incident of that blind man, or when there were two festivals one after the other involving eruvei tavshilin, or with the interruption of another festival. And in any case, why did they omit this matter entirely? And it appears, in my humble opinion, that it was obvious to our teachers that nowadays, when preoccupation has increased due to our many sins—it is impossible to apply the term "negligent" to this. And even in the time of the Gemara, perhaps only regarding a great man, like that blind man who would arrange the Mishnayot before Shmuel—did they call him "negligent." And therefore the Shas mentioned that he would arrange the Mishnayot, meaning that for a great man such as this—it was certainly negligence, but not for us. And in truth, our intention is for everyone, and so even one who knew and did not set an eruv as well. Our intention is for anyone who did not set an eruv, except that this matter is also not common among us.

And when one establishes an eruv for others, he does not need to specify in detail for whom, but rather he establishes it for the general population of the city. And anyone who is within the techum of the city fulfills his obligation with it, for ordinarily his intention is for the city and its techum. But one who dwells outside the techum does not fulfill his obligation with this, unless they specified explicitly that he is establishing the eruv for so-and-so and so-and-so who dwell outside the techum. And also on the condition that he can arrive by means of an eruv, and he established eruvei techumin. And when they did not specify explicitly—even if he established an eruv it is not effective, for ordinarily the intention is only for the city and its techum.

It is a simple matter that the prominent person who places it must have his intent at the time of making the eruv for the sake of the residents of the city. However, the residents of the city, even if they did not have intent then to fulfill their obligation with his eruv, also fulfill their obligation with it. And perforce it must be so, for if they had remembered, they would have made an eruv themselves. For in a case where they remembered and did not make an eruv themselves, it has already been explained that relying on that of the prominent person of the city is not effective. Nevertheless, on Yom Tov he should inform them that he made an eruv on their behalf before they begin to cook for Shabbat. And he should not leave them to rely on an assessment of the situation, that he presumably made an eruv on their behalf (Taz, subsection 10). However, if they know that it is the way of the prominent person to place it on their behalf, they may rely on him when they forgot to make an eruv, even without his notification. And the Rambam wrote that on the next day he should announce that he placed it on their behalf; see there.

It has already been explained that when one sets it aside for others—he also needs to grant them acquisition through another, so that it leaves his possession. And he does not grant acquisition to them through his minor son or daughter, nor through his Canaanite manservant or maidservant, but rather through another: either through his adult son or daughter who are not supported at his table, or through his Hebrew manservant or maidservant; and not through his wife. And everything was explained above in siman 366 regarding eruvei chatzerot. And there is one who wrote that if his wife does not eat with him—he may grant acquisition through her, for she requires eruvei tavshilin for herself. And it is not similar to eruvei chatzerot (Magen Avraham subsection 1 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo), even if she receives a stipend from her husband. And this matter is not common.

And how shall he act? He says to the one acquiring: "Acquire this eruv on behalf of all the residents of the city." And the one acquiring lifts it one handbreadth from the table, as I have written there in siman 366. Afterward, he takes it from the hand of the one acquiring, holds them in his hand, and recites the blessing: Blessed... who has sanctified us... regarding the mitzvah of eruv. By this eruv, it shall be permitted for us to bake, to cook, to insulate, and to light a lamp, from the Yom Tov to the Shabbat, for us and for all who dwell in this city. And he places them in a guarded place until Shabbat, and on Shabbat he shall eat them. And some add to say also "and to do for us all our needs." And in truth, with this alone it would seemingly suffice, for everything is included in this. But it is not so. And one who does not know the holy tongue – may say it in any language he understands. And our women are accustomed to say that they must hear the blessing of the eruv and its placement, since they are occupied with the needs of Shabbat. And it is a beautification of the mitzvah, but this is not a legal requirement. And this is not mentioned in any place, and there is no reason for this at all.

The Rambam wrote only "to bake and to cook," and so too the Or Zarua (siman 347) cited from the Yerushalmi. However, some say that one must mention the lighting of candles independently, and if he did not mention it, he diminishes the candles (Ran and Hagahot Maimoniyot). Our version is from the Bahag. And some wrote that one also must say "to take out from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim" (Or Zarua and Hagahot Ashri), and they wrote that if he did not mention each thing specifically, but rather said "to do for us all our needs" – it is not effective (Or Zarua ibid.). These matters are not understood at all, but since the Rishonim said so – we must necessarily accept them, for their intellect is broader than ours. And so too wrote our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot (22b, starting with the words "and we light," see there). And some wrote that if he wishes to slaughter on Yom Tov – he must mention this in the eruvei tavshilin. But the custom is not so, nor to mention carrying (see Turei Zahav, subsection 11, who elaborated on this). And see in section 32.

When Yom Tov falls on Thursday and Friday, and one set eruvei tavshilin on Wednesday – it is forbidden for him on Thursday to cook for Shabbat, but only on Friday. For we are experts in the fixing of the month, and the first day is certainly Yom Tov. And even without this, why should we permit for Shabbat from the day before the day before? It is enough for us to permit immediately before Shabbat. Nevertheless, if they cooked from Thursday for Shabbat – one should not forbid it ex post facto (Taz, subsection 12). And there is one who wishes to forbid it even ex post facto (Rashal), and it is a wonder, and the first opinion is primary. (The Yerushalmi that they cited, that one must say "from Yom Tov to its fellow, and from Yom Tov to Shabbat" – this is when the first day is on Friday, and the second is on Shabbat, therefore one must mention Yom Tov and Shabbat. And see Taz there and in the Beit Yosef. And before us this is not found in the Yerushalmi at all, and also the version in the previous section is not found before us.)

The Tur wrote that one may set aside the eruv with the intent to rely upon it as long as it exists, even for another Yom Tov. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 14: If one set aside the eruv with the intent to rely upon it as long as it exists, even for another Yom Tov—initially he should not rely upon it for another Yom Tov, but post facto he may rely upon it. Thus far his words. The explanation of their words: For we have already explained in section 4 that according to Rava, where the reason is so that he will select a choice portion for Shabbat—it is only effective on the eve of Yom Tov. And according to Rav Ashi, where it is for the honor of Yom Tov, so that they do not treat it with contempt—it is permitted even several days beforehand, see there. Therefore, the Tur rules like Rav Ashi, as he is a later authority, and therefore he permitted even initially to rely upon it for another Yom Tov, and we do not require specifically the eve of Yom Tov. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, maintains that initially we must be concerned also for the view of Rava; therefore one should not do so initially, and post facto we rely upon Rav Ashi.

And we learned in the Mishnah that if the eruv was eaten, or if it was lost before he prepared for Shabbat – he cannot bake or cook unless a kezayit remains from it. And even though according to the reasons of Rava and Rav Ashi, since he placed the eruvei tavshilin it served as a remembrance for Shabbat and a remembrance for Yom Tov, nevertheless the essence of eruvei tavshilin is that this is a beginning for Shabbat, and the rest is the completion, as I wrote in section 5. And this is the meaning of "eruv" according to our teacher, the Rema, as I wrote there. And if so, if it was eaten or lost – there is no beginning of anything. And it is simple that this is when the cooked dish was eaten or lost, and therefore even if the bread remains – it is not an eruv. But if the bread was eaten or lost, and the cooked dish remains – we have no concern with it. And even if there is still time on the eve of Yom Tov to place other bread, perhaps we are not concerned for it since the essence is the cooked dish, as I wrote in section 7 (and from Magen Avraham, subsection 14, it does not imply so, see there). And after he has prepared all the needs of Shabbat, he may eat it. However, it is proper to leave it for the Shabbat meal. And the Maharam was accustomed to eating it at the third meal, and to include this bread for lechem mishneh, for since one mitzvah was performed with it – it is proper to perform another mitzvah with it.

And if he began his dough, and the eruv was eaten—he finishes that dough. And the same law applies if he began the cooked dish—he finishes that dish which he began, even if he did not set it by the fire yet but rather prepared it by cutting it, or placing it in the pot and the like. And the reason seems simple to me: for we explained in the previous section that it is because there is no beginning here yet, and here there was a beginning at the time he began to prepare for Shabbat. And it is simple that if he prepared for Yom Tov and they had not yet eaten it, and they wanted to prepare for Shabbat, and the eruv was eaten or lost—they may leave what they prepared for Yom Tov for Shabbat, for this was done permissibly when the eruv existed. And as for their intending it for the sake of Yom Tov—what of it? Intention does not disqualify in this. And now he shall bake and cook for Yom Tov. (And this is the intention of the Ra'avad and the Shulchan Aruch section 18. And from what he wrote "he baked but did not cook..."—the same law applies if he neither baked nor cooked, and so wrote the Levush. And the Taz subsection 15 elaborated, and raised a difficulty against the Levush, and his words are not understood. And also what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 17, that it is forbidden to leave it for a weekday, his intention is in such a case where he cooked for Yom Tov and intends to leave it for a weekday it is forbidden, unless it is from a bad food to a good one, as I wrote in siman 506. And know that regarding what we wrote that if the cooked dish was eaten it does not avail if the bread remained, I saw in the Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 13 in the name of the Pnei Yehoshua in manuscript, that we rely on the bread, see there. And in my humble opinion it is not so, according to what we hold like Rabbi Yehoshua in the Yerushalmi, that we bake and cook based on the cooked item. And it requires further study. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 19: One who did not make an eruv—it is permitted to light the Shabbat candle. And there are those who forbid. Thus far his words. Those who forbid are the Rosh and the Ran, for just as it is forbidden to cook and to bake—so too is the lighting of the candle. And the one who permits was inferred by our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book from the Rambam, who did not mention the lighting of the candle regarding the eruv, see there. And in truth, this is not a proof, for he holds that all melakhot were included in the eruv when he mentioned "to bake and to cook," but if one did not make an eruv at all—it is forbidden to light as well (Magen Avraham, subsection 18). And according to my humble opinion, it seems possible to uphold the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for another reason: for it was explained in siman 514 that it is permitted to light even on the second day of Yom Tov after Mincha. And it is not considered like preparing for a weekday because he needs it for that very hour, meaning, that it should illuminate at that very hour, as the day is close to departing. If so—all the more so that it is permitted to light on Yom Tov for the sake of that very hour, and automatically it will also remain for Shabbat. And so it appears to my humble opinion to be the primary view. And if it is because he lights many candles—who can protest against him when it is his will that many candles should illuminate at 그 hour? And if it is because on the eve of Shabbat he is certainly forced to light them before sunset, while it is still complete day, nevertheless, he needs them for the time of sunset and afterwards until it is night, as ibid.

One who did not make an eruv, just as he is forbidden to cook for himself – so too he is forbidden to cook for others. And it is not only necessary to state this regarding his own house, where those who know he did not make an eruv, but do not know that he is cooking for others, might say that it is permitted to cook without an eruv. Rather, even in their house – it is forbidden, for in this it is even worse than in his own house, as those who see him cooking in their house will not entertain the thought that he is cooking for this homeowner but rather for himself, and they will reason that because he did not make an eruv – it is forbidden for him to cook in his own house, but in the house of others – it is permitted. And a stumbling block will result from this (Taz, subsection 17).

And likewise, others are forbidden to cook for him. And there is no remedy for him except that he should give his flour and his cooked food as a gift to others who have made an eruv, and it becomes like theirs, and they bake and cook for him. And even in his house, for the observer will understand that it belongs to others, for if not so, why should they cook in his house? And the acquisition should be through meshikhah, and not through kinyan sudar, as it appears like a weekday activity. And likewise, in my humble opinion, another remedy appears possible: that they may cook a large amount in their own pot of their own food and give to him, and after Yom Tov he shall return it to them. For indeed, in one pot it is permitted to cook a large amount, as I wrote in siman 503.

It is stated in the Gemara (21b): One who did not set an eruvei tavshilin—they bake for him one loaf, and they cook for him one pot, and they light… and ostensibly it implies that others do it for him, and not he himself. However, in the Tosefta and Yerushalmi it is explicitly explained that even he himself may do so, and the wording of the Gemara "they bake for him" refers to the members of his household. Thus ruled the Rosh, and the Ran, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch. But the Rif and the Rambam omitted this, and their reason is not known. (See the Beit Yosef who wrote that they ruled like Rava, but from where do we know that Rava disagrees with this law?) Nevertheless, all our teachers ruled this as the halacha. And there are those who wish to say: specifically when there are no others to whom to transfer ownership of his flour. And this too is not clear, and thus ruled the great authorities (Beit Yosef, and Yam Shel Shlomo, and Magen Avraham subsection 20, and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 27). For the sages permitted everything necessary for his livelihood, since from the Torah it is completely permitted, whether because the needs of Shabbat are performed on Yom Tov, or because of the reason of "ho'il," as I wrote at the beginning of the siman.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 20 that if one set an eruv and did not explicitly mention the labors, but rather said "By this it shall be permitted for us to do all our needs" – it is as if he did not set an eruv at all. Thus far his words. We have already written this in section 23, and that the matters are not understood. I have seen one who wondered about him regarding this (Taz, subsection 18). The Levush wrote the reason is because this phrasing implies that he wishes to perform all labors as on a weekday, and this is impossible; see there. This too is perplexing, for the cooked food itself proves his intent. There is one who wrote that the essential thing is saying "by this," so that he may select a choice portion for Shabbat (Magen Avraham, subsection 23), and this too is not understood, for we hold that the essential thing is the reason that they should not treat Yom Tov lightly, as I wrote in section 4 and in section 25. Furthermore: since he said "by this," just because he did not say "to bake and to cook" – is the eruv not before him, and he will select a choice portion? And this appears as the halacha, that one should not make another berakha (Taz, ibid.), but rather he should say "by this" with the formula according to its law. And if the entire day of the eve of Yom Tov passed and he did not rectify this – we must perforce be concerned for the opinion of those who forbid, and transfer ownership of his flour to others. (And perhaps if it is impossible to do so – one may rely in a time of pressing need upon the Taz, and he may cook for Shabbat. For regarding a rabbinic matter, one should be lenient in a time of pressing need.)

He further wrote that one who fasts on Yom Tov is forbidden to cook for others, even for a need on that very day. For it is like one who did not set an eruv, who may not cook for others. Thus far his words. That is to say: just as on a Yom Tov that falls on the eve of Shabbat, one who did not set an eruv is forbidden to cook for Shabbat, both for himself and for others—so too on every Yom Tov. For the Torah permitted "that which shall be eaten by every soul," and this person who is fasting and does not need to cook for himself is forbidden to cook for others as well. And consequently, even on a Yom Tov that falls on the eve of Shabbat, even if he set an eruv tavshilin, he is forbidden to cook for Shabbat, for the primary permission is because of "since, if guests were to happen upon him," and for him it is forbidden to cook on Yom Tov for others, as I have written (Magen Avraham, subsection 22). And if it is difficult: let us say "since," and if he wants he can seek a release from his vow—we do not permit ab initio based on the reason of "since" (ibid.), and even if she is a maidservant, if she is fasting it is forbidden for her to cook (ibid.).

However, in my humble opinion, this is not comparable to one who did not set an eruvei tavshilin, for from the Torah one may not cook from Yom Tov for Shabbat, were it not for the reason of "ho'il" and the sages instituted eruvei tavshilin. Or even if from the Torah the needs of Shabbat may be performed on Yom Tov—nevertheless the sages forbade it without eruvei tavshilin. But Yom Tov—behold, the Torah permitted cooking and baking, for in this regard it is like a weekday. And we have not found that the sages required any preparation for this. If so, what does it matter to us that he is fasting? Behold, it is a day on which it was permitted to cook and bake. And if it is because it is written (Exodus 12:16) "it alone shall be done for you," and anything that is not "for you" is not for others—where do we find this derivation? Furthermore: if so, from where do we know to derive "for you"—and not for the Most High, "for you"—and not for animals? Behold, it would be needed for this derivation, that one who fasts is forbidden to perform work. And it requires great study.

One who forgot to set an eruv tavshilin, if he remembers on the eve of Shabbat before the morning meal—he may cook a large amount in one pot for Yom Tov, and some will remain for Shabbat as well. For in one pot it is permitted even more than what is needed for Yom Tov, as I wrote in siman 503. And even for a weekday—it is permitted in such a case, as I wrote there. And likewise it is permitted to cook several pots, and to eat on Yom Tov from each and every pot and leave over for Shabbat, and as I wrote there. And even if it happened that he did not eat from one type—it is of no consequence, since at the time of cooking it was his intention to eat some of it today. To what is this comparable? To one who cooks several foods on Yom Tov, and afterwards does not desire to eat one food: shall we compel him to eat? And here too it is so. Provided that he does not practice deception in this, meaning that at the time of cooking it should not be his intention at all not to eat from this pot (Taz subsection 20, see there).

If the two days of Yom Tov were on Thursday and Friday, and one forgot and did not make an eruv, and remembered on Thursday: if it is Rosh Hashanah—the condition that will be explained is of no use, for it is as one long day. But if it is Pesach or Sukkot—he may make the eruv today with a condition. He should take the eruv tavshilin in his hand and say: If today is holy and tomorrow is mundane—then I do not need an eruv, and there is nothing in my words. And if today is mundane and tomorrow is holy—behold I am making an eruv, and with this eruv... and tomorrow he does not need to say anything, for in any case: if yesterday was mundane—behold he made the eruv yesterday. And if today is mundane—behold he does not need an eruv. And it is obvious that he must leave over from his food for the eruv, for to cook on Yom Tov for the sake of the eruv is certainly forbidden, as is understood. And there is one who says that we specifically require something that was cooked from yesterday, according to the law of eruv tavshilin that the beginning must be on the eve of Yom Tov. And his words were rejected, for since he makes the eruv with a condition—it follows that today is like the eve of Yom Tov.

It appears to my humble opinion to be clear that one who makes an eruv on condition does not need to recite a blessing, but rather should state the condition along with "with this eruv." However, to recite a blessing is impossible, for how can he recite a blessing and say "if today is holy my words are nothing," resulting in a blessing recited in vain? And if it is because the sages so ordained—this is not a fixed ordinance, but rather for one who forgot, or one who wishes to make an eruv on condition. And is this a fixed ordinance from our sages, of blessed memory, that we should recite a blessing over it? And there is one who says that he must recite a blessing (Magen Avraham, subsection 25). But in my humble opinion, it is clear that he does not need a blessing. And so I found one of the great authorities who ruled that one should not recite a blessing, and such is the primary ruling in the law (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger in the name of the Algazi).

And similarly regarding the matter of separating terumah, which is forbidden on Yom Tov: if there were two baskets of tevel before him, on the first day of Yom Tov he says: "If today is a weekday—let this be terumah for that one. And if today is holy—my words are nothing." And he designates it by name and sets it aside. And on the next day he says: "If today is holy—my words are nothing. And if today is a weekday—let this be terumah for that one." And he designates it by name, and eats the second one. And the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, is already known, that in this time when we are experts in the fixing of the month—a condition does not avail for any eruv. And in any matter his words were not accepted by all the poskim, for is it because we know that today is holy that it should be diminished? Therefore, even now we practice with a condition for eruvin.

The Rambam wrote in the sixth chapter, law 10: One who did not set an eruvei tavshilin, and cooked and baked on the day itself and left over, or invited guests and they did not come – behold, he may eat the remainder the next day. But if he practiced deception – behold, it is forbidden for him to eat it. If he transgressed and baked and cooked for Shabbat – we do not forbid it to him. And why were they stringent and forbade it to the one who practices deception, but did not forbid it to the one who acts willfully? For if you permit it to the one who practices deception – it will result in everyone practicing deception, and the name of "eruvei tavshilin" will be forgotten. But the willful actor is not common. And if he transgressed today – he will not transgress another time. Thus far his words, and so wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch at the end of this siman. And for this reason, if he cooked unintentionally – it should have been forbidden to us. For if we permit it – everyone will say "we are unintentional actors," just as with the one who practices deception. And indeed, there is one who holds so, but our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even the unintentional actor is equal to the willful actor. And the truth is so: for granted that deception – is light in the eyes of people, and they will come to practice deception. But regarding a willful act – one cannot suspect any member of Israel that he would act willfully. (See Magen Avraham subsection 27, and see Lechem Mishneh who raised a difficulty against the Rambam from the discussion of the Shas 18b and answered.)