If there is a window in a wall that separates between two courtyards, and the window measures four by four handbreadths and is within ten handbreadths of the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard. And if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, thereby merging the two courtyards, as they may be considered as one due to the window. However, if the window measures less than four by four handbreadths, or if it is above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is no longer considered a valid opening, and the two courtyards cannot be considered a single courtyard. Therefore, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.
If a wall between two courtyards is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, a separate one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv.If there was produce on top of the wall, these residents of one courtyard may ascend from this side and eat from it, and those residents of the other courtyard may ascend from that side and eat from it, provided that they do not lower the produce down from on top of the wall to one of the courtyards. If the wall was breached, the following distinction applies: If the breach was up to ten cubits wide, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, as it is similar to an entrance, like any opening less than ten cubits wide. If the breach was more than this, they establish one eiruv, and they may not establish two, as a breach of this size nullifies the partition and joins the two courtyards into a single domain.
With regard to a ditch between two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a full-fledged partition, and the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv. Even if the ditch is filled with straw or hay, it is not regarded as sealed and is therefore not nullified. However, if the ditch is filled with dirt or pebbles, the residents establish one eiruv, but they may not establish two eiruvin, as the ditch is nullified and considered nonexistent.
If one placed a board four handbreadths wide across the ditch so that he could cross it, and similarly, if two balconies [gezuztraot] in two different courtyards are opposite one another, and one placed a board four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the courtyards or balconies establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one, as the board serves as an opening and a passageway between them. If the width of the plank is less than four handbreadths, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.
With regard to a haystack that is positioned between two courtyards and is ten handbreadths high, it has the status of a partition, and therefore the residents of the courtyards may establish two eiruvin, and they may not establish one eiruv. These, the inhabitants of one courtyard, may feed their animals from here, from one side of the haystack, and those, the inhabitants of the other courtyard, may feed their animals from there, from the other side of the haystack. There is no concern that the haystack might become too small to serve as a partition. If the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths across its entire length, its legal status is no longer that of a partition. Consequently, the residents of both courtyards establish one eiruv, and they do not establish two eiruvin.
How does one merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his own food and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, and the tanna therefore teaches that he may confer possession to them even by means of his adult son or daughter, and likewise by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway. However, he may not confer possession by means of his minor son or daughter, nor by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, because they cannot effect acquisition, as ownership of objects that come into their possession is as if those objects came into his possession. Consequently, the master or father cannot confer possession to the slave or minor respectively on behalf of others as their acquisition is ineffective and the object remains in his own possession.
If the food in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway diminished and was less than the requisite measure, one may add a little of his own and confer possession to the others, and he need not inform them of his addition. However, if new residents were added to the residents of the alleyway, he may add food on behalf of those residents and confer possession to them, and he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways.
What is the measure of food required for a merging of the alleyways? When the residents of the alley are numerous, food for two meals is sufficient for all of them; when they are few, less than a certain number, a dried fig-bulk for each and every one of them is enough.
Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the beginning of an eiruv, when it is initially established. However, with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, e.g., if the eiruv decreased in size on Shabbat, it remains valid if even any amount remains. And in general they said that it is necessary to join the courtyards, even though a merging of the alleyways was already in place, only so that the halakhic category of eiruvwill not be forgotten by the children, i.e., so that the next generation should be aware that an eiruv can be established for a courtyard, for otherwise they would be entirely unaware of this halakhic category.
One may join courtyards and merge alleyways with all types of food, except for water and salt, as they are not considered foods. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says that a different limitation applies: A whole loaf may be used for an eiruv. With regard to a baked product even the size of a se’a, if it consists of pieces, one may not join courtyards with it. However, with regard to a loaf, even one the size of an issar, if it is whole, one may join courtyards with it.
A person may give a ma’a coin to a grocer or a baker, if they live in the same alleyway or courtyard, so that the grocer or baker will confer upon him possession of wine or bread for a merging of the alleyway or an eiruv, if other residents come to them to purchase these products for that purpose. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.And the Rabbis say: His money did not confer possession on him, as the transfer of money alone is not a valid mode of acquisition and cannot confer possession. One must perform a valid mode of acquisition, e.g., pulling an article into one’s possession, to transfer ownership. And the Rabbis concede with regard to all other people, apart from grocers and bakers, that if one gave them money for the food of an eiruv, his money confers possession upon him, as one may establish an eiruv for a person only with his knowledge and at his bidding. With regard to a grocer or baker, the person giving the money does not intend to appoint the grocer or the baker as his agent and the money itself does not effect an acquisition, and consequently, he did not accomplish anything. With regard to anyone else, however, there is no doubt that he must have intended to appoint him his agent, and his act is effective. Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for a person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. The reason is because one may act for a person’s benefit in his absence, but one may not act to a person’s disadvantage in his absence. As a participant in a joining of courtyards benefits from his inclusion in the eiruv, his consent is not required. However, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, although it enables one to go farther in one direction, he loses the option of traveling in the opposite direction. When an action is to a person’s disadvantage, or if it entails both benefits and disadvantages, one may act on that person’s behalf only if he has been explicitly appointed his agent.
חַלּוֹן שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת, אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם רָצוּ, מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, אוֹ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד:
If there is a window in a wall that separates between two courtyards, and the window measures four by four handbreadths and is within ten handbreadths of the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard. And if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, thereby merging the two courtyards, as they may be considered as one due to the window. However, if the window measures less than four by four handbreadths, or if it is above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is no longer considered a valid opening, and the two courtyards cannot be considered a single courtyard. Therefore, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.
כֹּתֶל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. הָיוּ בְרֹאשׁוֹ פֵרוֹת, אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִין, וְאֵלּוּ עוֹלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִין, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹרִידוּ לְמַטָּה. נִפְרְצָה הַכֹּתֶל עַד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְפֶתַח. יוֹתֵר מִכָּאן, מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנָיִם:
If a wall between two courtyards is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, a separate one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv. If there was produce on top of the wall, these residents of one courtyard may ascend from this side and eat from it, and those residents of the other courtyard may ascend from that side and eat from it, provided that they do not lower the produce down from on top of the wall to one of the courtyards. If the wall was breached, the following distinction applies: If the breach was up to ten cubits wide, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, as it is similar to an entrance, like any opening less than ten cubits wide. If the breach was more than this, they establish one eiruv, and they may not establish two, as a breach of this size nullifies the partition and joins the two courtyards into a single domain.
חָרִיץ שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבַּע, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד, אֲפִלּוּ מָלֵא קַשׁ אוֹ תֶבֶן. מָלֵא עָפָר, אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת, מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנָיִם:
With regard to a ditch between two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a full-fledged partition, and the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv. Even if the ditch is filled with straw or hay, it is not regarded as sealed and is therefore not nullified. However, if the ditch is filled with dirt or pebbles, the residents establish one eiruv, but they may not establish two eiruvin, as the ditch is nullified and considered nonexistent.
נָתַן עָלָיו נֶסֶר שֶׁהוּא רָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי גְזֻזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ כְנֶגֶד זוֹ, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם רָצוּ, מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד:
If one placed a board four handbreadths wide across the ditch so that he could cross it, and similarly, if two balconies [gezuztraot] in two different courtyards are opposite one another, and one placed a board four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the courtyards or balconies establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one, as the board serves as an opening and a passageway between them. If the width of the plank is less than four handbreadths, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.
מַתְבֵּן שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. אֵלּוּ מַאֲכִילִין מִכָּאן וְאֵלּוּ מַאֲכִילִין מִכָּאן. נִתְמַעֵט הַתֶּבֶן מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנָיִם:
With regard to a haystack that is positioned between two courtyards and is ten handbreadths high, it has the status of a partition, and therefore the residents of the courtyards may establish two eiruvin, and they may not establish one eiruv. These, the inhabitants of one courtyard, may feed their animals from here, from one side of the haystack, and those, the inhabitants of the other courtyard, may feed their animals from there, from the other side of the haystack. There is no concern that the haystack might become too small to serve as a partition. If the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths across its entire length, its legal status is no longer that of a partition. Consequently, the residents of both courtyards establish one eiruv, and they do not establish two eiruvin.
כֵּיצַד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בַּמָּבוֹי. מֵנִיחַ אֶת הֶחָבִית וְאוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי זוֹ לְכָל בְּנֵי מָבוֹי, וּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי בְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים וְעַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְזַכֶּה לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדָן כְּיָדוֹ:
How does one merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his own food and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, and the tanna therefore teaches that he may confer possession to them even by means of his adult son or daughter, and likewise by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway. However, he may not confer possession by means of his minor son or daughter, nor by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, because they cannot effect acquisition, as ownership of objects that come into their possession is as if those objects came into his possession. Consequently, the master or father cannot confer possession to the slave or minor respectively on behalf of others as their acquisition is ineffective and the object remains in his own possession.
נִתְמַעֵט הָאֹכֶל, מוֹסִיף וּמְזַכֶּה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ. נִתּוֹסְפוּ עֲלֵיהֶם, מוֹסִיף וּמְזַכֶּה, וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ:
If the food in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway diminished and was less than the requisite measure, one may add a little of his own and confer possession to the others, and he need not inform them of his addition. However, if new residents were added to the residents of the alleyway, he may add food on behalf of those residents and confer possession to them, and he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways.
כַּמָּה הוּא שִׁעוּרוֹ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרֻבִּין, מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת לְכֻלָּם. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מֻעָטִין, כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד:
What is the measure of food required for a merging of the alleyways? When the residents of the alley are numerous, food for two meals is sufficient for all of them; when they are few, less than a certain number, a dried fig-bulk for each and every one of them is enough.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּתְחִלַּת עֵרוּב. אֲבָל בִּשְׁיָרֵי עֵרוּב, כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לְעָרֵב בַּחֲצֵרוֹת אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁכֵּחַ אֶת הַתִּינוֹקוֹת:
Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the beginning of an eiruv, when it is initially established. However, with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, e.g., if the eiruv decreased in size on Shabbat, it remains valid if even any amount remains. And in general they said that it is necessary to join the courtyards, even though a merging of the alleyways was already in place, only so that the halakhic category of eiruv will not be forgotten by the children, i.e., so that the next generation should be aware that an eiruv can be established for a courtyard, for otherwise they would be entirely unaware of this halakhic category.
בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, כִּכָּר הוּא עֵרוּב. אֲפִלּוּ מַאֲפֵה סְאָה וְהִיא פְרוּסָה, אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ. כִּכָּר בְּאִסָּר וְהוּא שָׁלֵם, מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ:
One may join courtyards and merge alleyways with all types of food, except for water and salt, as they are not considered foods. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says that a different limitation applies: A whole loaf may be used for an eiruv. With regard to a baked product even the size of a se’a, if it consists of pieces, one may not join courtyards with it. However, with regard to a loaf, even one the size of an issar, if it is whole, one may join courtyards with it.
נוֹתֵן אָדָם מָעָה לְחֶנְוָנִי וּלְנַחְתּוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ עֵרוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא זָכוּ לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו. וּמוֹדִים בִּשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם שֶׁזָּכוּ לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו, שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין לְאָדָם אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּעֵרוּבֵי תְחוּמִין, אֲבָל בְּעֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת, מְעָרְבִין לְדַעְתּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו:
A person may give a ma’a coin to a grocer or a baker, if they live in the same alleyway or courtyard, so that the grocer or baker will confer upon him possession of wine or bread for a merging of the alleyway or an eiruv, if other residents come to them to purchase these products for that purpose. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: His money did not confer possession on him, as the transfer of money alone is not a valid mode of acquisition and cannot confer possession. One must perform a valid mode of acquisition, e.g., pulling an article into one’s possession, to transfer ownership. And the Rabbis concede with regard to all other people, apart from grocers and bakers, that if one gave them money for the food of an eiruv, his money confers possession upon him, as one may establish an eiruv for a person only with his knowledge and at his bidding. With regard to a grocer or baker, the person giving the money does not intend to appoint the grocer or the baker as his agent and the money itself does not effect an acquisition, and consequently, he did not accomplish anything. With regard to anyone else, however, there is no doubt that he must have intended to appoint him his agent, and his act is effective. Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for a person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. The reason is because one may act for a person’s benefit in his absence, but one may not act to a person’s disadvantage in his absence. As a participant in a joining of courtyards benefits from his inclusion in the eiruv, his consent is not required. However, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, although it enables one to go farther in one direction, he loses the option of traveling in the opposite direction. When an action is to a person’s disadvantage, or if it entails both benefits and disadvantages, one may act on that person’s behalf only if he has been explicitly appointed his agent.