Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: THURSDAY, ADAR I 27, 5774 • FEBRUARY 27, 2014

Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: THURSDAY, ADAR I 27, 5774 • FEBRUARY 27, 2014
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• REBBE FALLS ILL (1992) 
On the 27th of Adar I, 5752 (Monday, March 2, 1992), the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, suffered a disabling stroke while praying at the gravesite of the previous Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak of Lubavitch. On the same date two years later, the Rebbe lost consciousness following another stroke; three months later, on the 3rd of Tammuz 5754 (June 12, 1994), the Rebbe's soul ascended on high, orphaning a generation.
Links: A Gathering with the Rebbe
A Silence Louder Than Words 
DAILY QUOTE:
Such is the way of Torah: Bread with salt you shall eat, water in small measure you shall drink, and upon the ground you shall sleep; live a life of deprivation and toil in Torah. If so you do, "fortunate are you, and good is to you" (Psalms 128:2): fortunate are you in this world, and it is good to you in the World To Come.--Ethics of the Fathers 6:4
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY: 
Chumash: Pekudei, 5th Portion Exodus 40:1-40:16 with Rashi
• Chapter 40
1. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: א. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. "On the day of the first month, on the first of the month, you shall set up the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting. ב. בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ תָּקִים אֶת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
3. There you shall place the Ark of the Testimony, and you shall spread the dividing curtain toward the ark. ג. וְשַׂמְתָּ שָׁם אֵת אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת וְסַכֹּתָ עַל הָאָרֹן אֶת הַפָּרֹכֶת:
and you shall spread… toward the ark: Heb. וְסַכֹּתָ, an expression denoting protection, for this [dividing curtain] was a partition [not a covering].
וסכת על הארן: לשון הגנה, שהרי מחיצה היתה:
4. You shall bring in the table and set its arrangement; you shall bring in the menorah and kindle its lamps. ד. וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְעָרַכְתָּ אֶת עֶרְכּוֹ וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת הַמְּנֹרָה וְהַעֲלֵיתָ אֶת נֵרֹתֶיהָ:
and set its arrangement: [I.e., arrange] the two stacks of the [loaves of] showbread (Lev. 24:6).
וערכת את ערכו: שתי מערכות של לחם הפנים:      
5. You shall place the golden altar for incense before the Ark of the Testimony, and you shall place the screen of the entrance to the Mishkan. ה. וְנָתַתָּה אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב לִקְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת וְשַׂמְתָּ אֶת מָסַךְ הַפֶּתַח לַמִּשְׁכָּן:
6. You shall place the altar of the burnt offering in front of the entrance of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting. ו. וְנָתַתָּה אֵת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה לִפְנֵי פֶּתַח מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד:
7. You shall place the washstand between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and there you shall put water. ז. וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַכִּיֹּר בֵּין אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּבֵין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנָתַתָּ שָׁם מָיִם:
8. And you shall set up the courtyard all around, and you shall put up the screen for the gate to the courtyard. ח. וְשַׂמְתָּ אֶת הֶחָצֵר סָבִיב וְנָתַתָּ אֶת מָסַךְ שַׁעַר הֶחָצֵר:
9. You shall take the anointing oil and anoint the Mishkan and everything within it, and you shall sanctify it and all its furnishings; thus it will become a holy thing. ט. וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְהָיָה קֹדֶשׁ:
10. You shall anoint the altar for the burnt offering and all its implements; you shall sanctify the altar; thus the altar will become a holy of holies. י. וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֶת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהָיָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים:
11. You shall anoint the washstand and its base and sanctify it. יא. וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֶת הַכִּיֹּר וְאֶת כַּנּוֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתוֹ:
12. And you shall bring Aaron and his sons near the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and you shall bathe them in water. יב. וְהִקְרַבְתָּ אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְרָחַצְתָּ אֹתָם בַּמָּיִם:
13. And you shall clothe Aaron with the holy garments, and you shall anoint him and sanctify him so that he may serve Me [as a kohen]. יג. וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ אֶת אַהֲרֹן אֵת בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֹתוֹ וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ אֹתוֹ וְכִהֵן לִי:
14. And you shall bring his sons near and clothe them with tunics. יד. וְאֶת בָּנָיו תַּקְרִיב וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ אֹתָם כֻּתֳּנֹת:
15. And you shall anoint them, as you have anointed their father, so that they may serve Me [as kohanim]. And this shall be so that their anointment shall remain for them an everlasting kehunah throughout their generations." טו. וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֹתָם כַּאֲשֶׁר מָשַׁחְתָּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶם וְכִהֲנוּ לִי וְהָיְתָה לִהְיֹת לָהֶם מָשְׁחָתָם לִכְהֻנַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתָם:
16. Thus Moses did; according to all that the Lord had commanded him, so he did. טז. וַיַּעַשׂ משֶׁה כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֹתוֹ כֵּן עָשָׂה:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 120 - 134
• Chapter 120
This psalm rebukes slanderers, describing how the deadly effect of slander reaches even further than weapons.
1. A song of ascents. I have called out to the Lord in my distress, and He answered me.
2. O Lord, rescue my soul from the lips of falsehood, from a deceitful tongue.
3. What can He give you, and what [further restraint] can He add to you, O deceitful tongue?
4. [You resemble] the sharp arrows of a mighty one, and the coals of broom-wood.1
5. Woe unto me that I sojourned among Meshech, that I dwelt beside the tents of Kedar.
6. Too long has my soul dwelt among those who hate peace.
7. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.
Chapter 121
This psalm alludes to the Lower Paradise, from which one ascends to the Higher Paradise. It also speaks of how God watches over us.
1. A song of ascents. I lift my eyes to the mountains-from where will my help come?
2. My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
3. He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
4. Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
5. The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
6. The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
7. The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
8. The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time.
Chapter 122
The psalmist sings the praises of Jerusalem and tells of the miracles that happened there.
1. A song of ascents by David. I rejoiced when they said to me, "Let us go to the House of the Lord.”
2. Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem;
3. Jerusalem that is built like a city in which [all Israel] is united together.
4. For there the tribes went up, the tribes of God-as enjoined upon Israel-to offer praise to the Name of the Lord.
5. For there stood the seats of justice, the thrones of the house of David.
6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you have peace.
7. May there be peace within your walls, serenity within your mansions.
8. For the sake of my brethren and friends, I ask that there be peace within you.
9. For the sake of the House of the Lord our God, I seek your well-being.
Chapter 123
The psalmist laments the length of time we have already suffered in exile.
1. A song of ascents. To You have I lifted my eyes, You Who are enthroned in heaven.
2. Indeed, as the eyes of servants are turned to the hand of their masters, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes turned to the Lord our God, until He will be gracious to us.
3. Be gracious to us, Lord, be gracious to us, for we have been surfeited with humiliation.
4. Our soul has been overfilled with the derision of the complacent, with the scorn of the arrogant.
Chapter 124
1. A song of ascents by David. Were it not for the Lord Who was with us-let Israel declare-
2. were it not for the Lord Who was with us when men rose up against us,
3. then they would have swallowed us alive in their burning rage against us.
4. Then the waters would have inundated us, the torrent would have swept over our soul;
5. then the raging waters would have surged over our soul.
6. Blessed is the Lord, Who did not permit us to be prey for their teeth.
7. Our soul is like a bird which has escaped from the fowler's snare; the snare broke and we escaped.
8. Our help is in the Name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
Chapter 125
1. A song of ascents. Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion which never falters, but abides forever.
2. Mountains surround Jerusalem, and the Lord surrounds His people from this time and forever.
3. For the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the lot of the righteous; therefore the righteous need not stretch their hand to iniquity.
4. Be beneficent, O Lord, to the good and to those who are upright in their hearts.
5. But as for those that turn to their perverseness, may the Lord lead them with the workers of iniquity. Peace be upon Israel.
Chapter 126
The psalmist speaks of the future, comparing our Divine service in exile to one who sows arid land, then cries and begs God to send rain upon it so that the seed not be wasted. When he merits to reap the crop, he offers thanks to God.
1. A song of ascents. When the Lord will return the exiles of Zion, we will have been like dreamers.
2. Then our mouth will be filled with laughter, and our tongue with songs of joy; then will they say among the nations, "The Lord has done great things for these.”
3. The Lord has done great things for us; we were joyful.
4. Lord, return our exiles as streams to arid soil.
5. Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy.
6. He goes along weeping, carrying the bag of seed; he will surely return with songs of joy, carrying his sheaves.
Chapter 127
King David instructs his generation, and especially his son Solomon, to be sure that all one's actions be for the sake of Heaven. He also criticizes those who toil day and night in pursuit of a livelihood.
1. A song of ascents for Solomon. If the Lord does not build a house, then its builders labor upon it in vain. If the Lord will not guard a city, the vigilance of its watchman is in vain.
2. It is in vain for you, you who rise early, who sit up late, and who eat the bread of tension, for in fact He gives His loved ones sleep.
3. Behold, the heritage of the Lord is children; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
4. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth.
5. Fortunate is the man who has his quiver full of them; they will not find themselves shamed when they speak with enemies in public places.
Chapter 128
This psalm extols one who enjoys the fruits of his own labor, avoiding theft and deception, even refusing gifts. It also describes behavior appropriate to the God-fearing.
1. A song of ascents. Fortunate is every man who fears the Lord, who walks in His ways.
2. When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and you will have goodness.
3. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine in the inner chambers of your house; your children will be like olive saplings around your table.
4. Behold, so will be blessed the man who fears the Lord.
5. May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the goodness of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
6. And may you see children [born] to your children; peace upon Israel.
Chapter 129
The psalmist laments the troubles of Israel.
1. A song of ascents. Much have they persecuted me from my youth on. Let Israel declare it now-
2. "Much have they persecuted me from my youth on, [but] they have not prevailed against me.”
3. The plowmen plowed upon my back; they wished to make their furrow long.
4. But the Lord is just; He cut the cords of the lawless.
5. They will be humiliated and will be turned back, all the haters of Zion.
6. They will be as grass upon the rooftops that withers before one plucks it,
7. wherewith the reaper has never filled his hand, nor the sheaf-binder his arm;
8. and of which the passers-by never have said: "The blessing of the Lord be upon you; we bless you in the name of the Lord."
Chapter 130
The psalmist prays for an end to this long exile.
1. A song of ascents. Out of the depths I call to You, O Lord.
2. My Lord, hearken to my voice; let Your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleas.
3. God, if You were to preserve iniquities, my Lord, who could survive?
4. But forgiveness is with You, that You may be held in awe.
5. I hope in the Lord; my soul hopes, and I long for His word.
6. My soul yearns for the Lord more than those awaiting the morning wait for the morning.
7. Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord there is kindness; with Him there is abounding deliverance.
8. And He will redeem Israel from all its iniquities.
Chapter 131
In this prayer, David declares that never in the course of his life was he haughty, nor did he pursue greatness or worldly pleasures.
1. A song of ascents, by David. O Lord, my heart was not proud, nor were my eyes haughty; I did not seek matters that were too great and too wondrous for me.
2. Surely I put my soul at peace and soothed it like a weaned child with his mother; my soul was like a weaned child.
3. Let Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever.
Chapter 132
David composed this psalm while he and the elders of Israel wore sackcloth, in mourning over the plague that had descended upon the land, and their being distant from the Holy Temple. David therefore offers intense prayers, entreating God to remember the hardship and sacrifice he endured for the sake of the Temple.
1. A song of ascents. O Lord, remember unto David all his suffering,
2. how he swore to the Lord, and vowed to the Mighty Power of Jacob:
3. "I will not enter into the tent of my house; I will not go up into the bed that is spread for me;
4. I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids;
5. until I will have found a place for the Lord, a resting place for the Mighty Power of Jacob.”
6. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.
7. We will come to His resting places; we will prostrate ourselves at His footstool.
8. Ascend, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might.
9. May Your priests clothe themselves in righteousness, and may Your pious ones sing joyous songs.
10. For the sake of David Your servant, turn not away the face of Your anointed.
11. For the Lord has sworn to David a truth from which He will never retreat: "From the fruit of your womb will I set for you upon the throne.
12. If your sons will keep My covenant and this testimony of mine which I will teach them, then their sons, too, will sit on the throne for you until the end of time.
13. For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation.
14. This is My resting place to the end of time. Here will I dwell, for I have desired it.
15. I will abundantly bless her sustenance; I will satisfy her needy with bread.
16. I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her pious ones will sing joyous songs.
17. There I will cause David's power to flourish; there I have prepared a lamp for My anointed.
18. His enemies will I clothe with shame, but upon him, his crown will blossom."
Chapter 133
1. A song of ascents, by David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together.
2. Like the precious oil [placed] upon the head, flowing [in abundance] down the beard, the beard of Aaron which rests upon his garments.
3. Like the dew of Hermon which comes down upon the mountains of Zion, for there the Lord has commanded blessing, life unto eternity.
Chapter 134
The psalmist exhorts the scholarly and pious to rise from their beds at night, and go to the House of God.
1. A song of ascents. Behold: Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord who stand in the House of the Lord in the nights.
2. Lift up your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.
3. May the Lord, Who makes heaven and earth, bless you from Zion.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 32
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Thursday, Adar I 27, 5774 • February 27, 2014



Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 32
אבל מי שאינו חבירו, ואינו מקורב אצלו
But as to one who is not his companion — his equal — in the Torah and the mitzvot, so that (as our Sages say concerning the ignorant in general) even his deliberate transgressions are regarded as inadvertent acts, since he is unaware of the gravity of sin; nor is he on intimate terms with him; — not only is one not enjoined to hate him: on the contrary, he must in fact, strive to become closer to him, as the Alter Rebbe states shortly.
To hate such a sinner is surely unjustifiable, since no sin that he commits is considered deliberate. There is also no reason to keep one’s distance from him out of fear that he will learn from his evil ways (in fulfillment of the exhortation of the Mishnah, “Do not fraternize with a wicked man”), since he is not on close personal terms with him in any case.
הנה על זה אמר הלל הזקן: הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן, אוהב שלום וכו׳, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה
Therefore, on the contrary: Of this situation Hillel said, 1 “Be one of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving creatures and drawing them near to the Torah.”
לומר שאף הרחוקים מתורת ה׳ ועבודתו, ולכן נקראים בשם בריות בעלמא, צריך למשכן בחבלי עבותות אהבה
This usage of the term “creatures” in reference to human beings means that even those who are far from G d’s Torah and His service, for which reason they are classified simply as “creatures“ — indicating that the fact that they are G d’s creations is their sole virtue — even those one must attract with strong cords of love.
וכולי האי ואולי יוכל לקרבן לתורה ועבודת ה׳
Perhaps thereby one will be able, after all, to draw them close to the Torah and the service of G d.
והן לא, לא הפסיד שכר מצות אהבת ריעים
And even if one fails in this, he has not forfeited the merit of the mitzvah of neighborly love which he has fulfilled by his efforts in this direction.
FOOTNOTES
1. Avot 1:12.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 321
Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat
"Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day"—Exodus 16:29.
It is forbidden on Shabbat to travel more than 2,000 cubits (approximately 3000 ft.) out of a city's parameters.

Going Beyond City Limits on Shabbat

Negative Commandment 321

Translated by Berel Bell

The 321st prohibition is that we are forbidden to travel [even by foot] on Shabbos.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1, "No man may leave his place on the seventh day."

Oral Tradition defines limit of "travel" as 2000 amos2 beyond the city limit; one may not walk even a single amoh more. However, one may walk within 2000 amos from the city limit in any direction.3

The Mechilta says: " 'No man may leave his place,' — this means beyond 2000 amos."

Our Sages said in tractate Eruvin4, "For violating the prohibition of the Shabbos limit, one receives lashes by Biblical ordinance."5

The details of this commandment are discussed in that same tractate.

FOOTNOTES

1. Shmos 16:29.

2. Approximately 3000 ft. In Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Shabbos 27:1), the Rambam rules that walking 2000 amos is prohibited only by Rabbinic law, while the Biblical prohibition is in effect only at 12 mil, or approximately 24,000 amos.

The Rambam himself explains, however, (in responsa 310, quoted in Mishneh Torah, Kapach ed., p. 575) that there is no contradiction between his two works. Sefer Hamitzvos is meant only to give a general description of the mitzvah, so he did not mention the two categories. Mishneh Torah, on the other hand, gives all the relevant halachic details. See also Introduction to Sefer Hamitzvos.

3. In Mishneh Torah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that this area is considered within the suburbs of the city (see Num. 35:5).

4. 17b.

5. With this quote, the Rambam proves that this mitzvah in included in the count of the 613 mitzvos.

-------
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Hilchot Nizkei Mammon Chapter Three 

Chapter Three

1. It is taken for granted that an animal is prone to eat fruit, vegetables or the like. Therefore, if [an animal] enters a domain belonging to another person and eats produce that it would normally eat, [the owner of the animal] is liable for the entire amount of the damages, as stated [in Exodus 22:4]: "And if he shall send forth his animals, and they shall pasture in another's field, payment should be exacted from his choice field."

If [the animal] ate produce belonging to another person in the public domain, [the owner] is not liable.1 If [the animal] benefits [from eating the produce], the owner must pay for the benefit [his animal received], but not for the damages caused.

2. What is implied? If [an animal] entered another person's domain and ate sesame seeds, chestnuts or the like that were worth a dinar, [the owner] must pay a dinar. If [the animal ate these foods] in the public domain and derived benefit, we consider [these foods] as if they were barley or fodder, and [the owner is required to] pay the wholesale2 price of fodder3 or barley.4

3. If the animal ate foods that are harmful to it - e.g., it ate wheat - since it did not derive any benefit, [the owner] is not liable. If it ate substances that it would not usually eat - e.g., it ate a garment or a utensil - [the owner] should pay half the damages.5

[This applies] both in a private domain and in a public domain. [The rationale is that] this is a deviation. [Hence, the owner is liable for only half the damages. He is liable for damage caused in the public domain, however] because it is the ordinary practice of people to leave their utensils or garments in the public domain while they rest.

4. There is a doubt [regarding the liability of the owner when his] animal is standing in a private domain, but takes produce [belonging to the owner of the private domain] from the public domain and eats it in that private domain.6 Therefore, [the owner] is liable only for the benefit [his animal] derived.7 If, however, the person whose property was damaged seizes possession of the full worth of the damage [caused by the animal], it should not be expropriated from him,8 for [the produce] was eaten in his domain.

5. When a dog entered a courtyard, took bread or meat, brought it into the public domain or to another courtyard9 and ate it there, [the owner] should pay for the benefit [the dog] received.10

If [the dog] ate [the food] in a field belonging to the owner of the courtyard, the [dog's owner] must pay the full extent of the damages as if it had been eaten in the courtyard, because it was eaten in a domain belonging to the person whose property was damaged.11 The same [laws] apply in all analogous situations.

6. [The following rules apply when] an animal eats foods that it would not ordinarily eat, but would eat under constraint: e.g., a cow that ate barley, a donkey that ate vetch12 or fish, a pig that ate a piece of meat, a dog that licked oil, a cat that ate dates and the like.

If the foods were eaten in a domain belonging to the person whose property was damaged, [the owner] must pay the entire amount of the damage.13 [If the foods were eaten] in the public domain, he is not liable. If [the animal] benefited, the owner must pay for that benefit.

7. When a beast enters a private domain and seizes an animal or meat14 and eats it, [its owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, for this is its ordinary course of behavior.

When, however, a dog eats small sheep,15 or a cat eats large cocks,16 this is considered to be a deviation,17 and [the owner] is liable for [only] half the damages.

8. When there is a basket of bread [in a private domain], and a donkey enters and breaks the basket and eats the bread, [the owner] is liable for the full extent of the damages, for this is [a donkey's] ordinary behavior.

Similarly, if a goat sees a turnip or the like on the opening of a jug, stumbles over the jug and eats the turnip and breaks the jug, [the owner] must pay the full damages for both, for it is the ordinary pattern [for such an animal] to hang on to utensils and climb on them in order to eat. The same applies in all analogous situations.

If, however, a donkey came in and ate bread and then broke a basket, [the owner] is liable for full damages for the bread, but only half damages for the basket.18 The same applies in all analogous situations.

9. When an animal eats [produce] in the marketplace, whether when walking or when standing, [its owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received.19 This applies even if the animal turns [its head] to the corners of the marketplace and eats.20 If, however, the animal left the marketplace and went and stood at the corner of the marketplace and ate [produce], [its owner] must pay for the damages.21

If the animal ate from [produce in] the storefront, [the owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received. If it ate from [produce] within the store, he must pay the full extent of the damages.

10. If an animal was walking in the public domain and stretched out its neck and ate from [produce] that was [loaded onto] another animal's back, [its owner] must pay [only] for the benefit it received, for it is common for animals to eat from [a load] being carried by another.22 [This law applies] even when [the animal] stands.

If it jumped23 to eat from the [produce] that was [loaded onto] another animal's back, [its owner] must pay the full extent of the damages,24 because the back of another animal is considered to be the private domain of the person who suffered the damage.

11. When an animal slips on a stone or on urine and falls onto fruit or vegetables or eats them, [the owner] is required to pay [only] for the benefit it receives. Even if it walks from one row to another row, and even if it stays there the entire day, he is required to pay [only] for the benefit it receives.25

What benefit could it receive from falling? That it fell on a soft place and did not crush its limbs.

If, by contrast, an animal descended [into private property] in an ordinary manner and ate produce, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages. Even if it soiled produce with its afterbirth, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, because the first stage involved negligence.26

Similarly, if it was pushed by another animal and fell, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, because he should have had them pass one by one so that they would not push each other.27

12. If it slipped and fell [into another person's garden], departed28 and then returned to that garden, [the owner] must pay the full extent of the damages, even if it returned without his knowledge. He was obligated to watch it, [and prevent it] from returning.29 For it is known that if an animal knows the way to a garden, it will return on its own initiative.

13. When a potter brings his wares into a person's courtyard without his permission, and an animal belonging to the owner [of the courtyard] broke the pottery, [the owner] is not liable.30 [Moreover,] if the animal is injured, the potter is liable.31

If he brought his wares in with [the owner's] permission, [the potter is not liable [for the animal's injury].32 If the owner made a commitment to guard the pottery, he is liable [for the damages].

14. Similarly, if [a person] brought produce into a courtyard belonging to another individual without his permission and the animal belonging to the owner [of the courtyard] ate it, [the owner of the courtyard] is not liable.33 If the animal slipped on it and suffered injuries, the owner of the produce is liable.34 If he brought the produce in with [the owner's] permission, [the owner of the produce] is not liable [for the animal's injury].35 If the owner [of the courtyard] made a commitment to guard the produce, he is liable [for the damages to the produce].36

If the person brought produce [into a courtyard] without permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate it and suffered injury because it ate it, the owner of the produce is not liable. The animal should not have eaten it.37

When the owner of a courtyard allowed a person to bring his produce into [the courtyard] and left [the owner of the produce] to watch it, if an animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard ate from the produce and suffered damages, the owner of the produce is liable. Since he saw the animal eating produce that could damage it and took no action, he is liable. For the owner of the courtyard is not present to banish his animal from them.

An incident occurred when a woman entered to bake in the house of her neighbors.38 They left her alone, so that they would not see her while she was kneading and baking.39 A goat belonging to the owner came and ate from [her raw] dough and died. The Sages obligated her to reimburse [the owners] for the goat. These principles apply in all similar situations.

15. When a person made a grain heap in a field belonging to a colleague without the latter's permission, and an animal belonging to the owner of the field ate it, [the owner of the field] is not liable. If the animal slipped on it and suffered injuries, the owner of the produce is liable. If the animal ate it and suffered injury because it ate it, [the owner of the produce] is not liable.40

If he had permission to make the grain heap, the owner of the field is liable, even if he did not accept the responsibility to guard [the grain pile]. Once a watchman in the granaries says: "Make your grain heap here," it is as if he told him: "Make your grain heap and I will guard it for you."41

FOOTNOTES

1.   The proof-text stated above explicitly states that the owner is liable when his animals pasture in another's field. This is understood as excluding the public domain.In Chapter 1, Halachah 8, the Rambam explains the rationale for this exclusion: It is the habit of an animal to go and eat as it proceeds - i.e., if a person leaves produce in the public domain, he should take it for granted that it will be eaten by the animals passing through.

2.   Our translation is loose. The Hebrew b'zol literally means as they are cheap. Rashi (Bava Kama 20a) states that he should pay 2/3 of the market price of the fodder. The reason for this reduction is that the owner is being forced to pay against his will.Based on his interpretation of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 2:2), the Shiltei Gibborim interpret b'zol as meaning when they are cheap - i.e., if they cost less than the substance eaten by the animal.

3.   Here also we have used a loose translation, because as mentioned in the Maggid Mishneh, the Kessef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh, there are several different interpretations of the Hebrew term emir.

4.   I.e., although the chestnuts or the sesame seeds are more valuable than the simple fodder, the owner is required to pay only the market price for the fodder, for that is what he would have fed his animal.

5.   The commentaries explain that this damage is considered a derivative of goring.

6.   There are two dimensions to the damage: the place from which the produce was taken, and the place where it was destroyed. One is not liable for produce taken from the public domain, but one is liable for produce eaten in a private domain. Hence the doubt mentioned by the Rambam. See Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:12.

7.   Because of the doubt, money cannot be exacted from its owner.

8.   Since the money is now in possession of the person whose property was damaged, it can also not be exacted from him. See the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 11.

9.   Belonging to another person.

10.  I.e., he does not pay the full price of the food. The rationale is, as in the previous halachah, that the food was eaten in the public domain.

11.  The fact that it was taken away from the place from which it was originally taken is not significant, provided that it is eaten in a domain belonging to that owner.

12.  A type of bean usually eaten by cows.

13.  Despite the fact that this is not the animal's ordinary food, since it ate it, the owner is liable for the damages. If, however, an animal eats food that it would never eat - e.g., a cow ate meat - the owner must pay only half the damages Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:3).

14.  The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:6) interpret this as referring to raw meat alone.

15.  I.e., even small sheep; certainly this applies with regard to large sheep.

16.  Eating small cocks, however, is not considered a deviation. See Ketubot 41b.

17.  The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) clarifies that this refers only to living animals. Once an animal has died, however, it is natural for a dog or cat to eat from its corpse regardless of its size.

18.  This is considered a derivative of goring. Hence the payment must be exacted from the body of the animal that caused the damage Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 391:4).

19.  For the marketplace is considered to be part of the public domain.

20.  For this is also the ordinary practice of an animal in the public domain.

21.  The area on the side of the marketplace is considered to be a private domain, and considered like the private property of the person whose property was damaged (Tosafot, Bava Kama 21a).

22.  Therefore, it is considered to be an ordinary instance of an animal's eating produce in the public domain.

23.  And placed its forelegs on the other animal. By doing so, it is considered to have left the public domain and entered the domain of the person whose produce was damaged.

24.  The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 391:11) differ and maintain that this ruling applies only when it is impossible for the animal to eat the produce without jumping on the other animal.

25.  Since the animal entered the private domain by accident, its owner is not held responsible for the damage it caused.

26.  Even if the owner did not know that the animal was about to give birth, and thus the damage can be considered to have come about by forces beyond his control. Since the animal's entry into the private domain came as a result of negligence, the owner is held liable. See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.

27.  I.e., this is also considered negligence on the owner's part. The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 394:1) consider this to be accidental, and free the owner of responsibility.

28.  The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 394:2) state that this law applies when the owner is aware that the animal entered the garden and departed.

29.  The Maggid Mishneh, the Tur and the Ramah (ibid.) state that if the owner locked the animal in a stall in an ordinary manner, and the animal managed to escape and return to the garden, the owner is not liable, because he did everything necessary to prevent this from happening.

30.  His animal has free rein within his own courtyard; it can be assumed that it will walk freely and trod on anything placed there. The potter brought his wares there at his own risk.

31.  The pottery is considered to be a pit dug in someone's private property, because the potter should have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that the owner's animal would not be damaged.

32.  For the owner knew of the pottery and should have taken care that his animal not be damaged.

33.  For it can be assumed that his animal will eat any produce left in his courtyard.

34.  For he created an obstacle in another person's domain.

35.  Since the owner gave the person permission to place his produce there, he must take responsibility for his animal.

36.  Note the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 393:1, 398:5), who maintain that if the owner of the courtyard gave the person permission to bring his wares in, he becomes liable for them. He does not have to make an explicit statement accepting responsibility.

37.  I.e., the owner of the courtyard should take responsibility for making sure that his animal does not overeat (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 393:4).

38.  Sefer Me'irat Einayim 393:5 explains that this incident teaches that even when the owner of the produce does not know that the owner of the courtyard has left, under certain circumstances, he should take responsibility for the animal belonging to the owner of the courtyard.

39.  It is common for a woman to roll up her sleeves and bare her arms when she is kneading dough. Out of concern for modesty, the owners of the house left the room (Bava Kama 48a).

40.  These laws are basically a restatement of those of the previous halachah. The new insight stated by the Rambam comes in the following paragraph.

41.  Note the Lechem Mishneh and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Kama 6:3), which indicate that the watchman is liable and not the owner of the field.See, however, Sefer Me'irat Einayim 393:7, which states that this is speaking about an instance in which the owner himself guards his fields.

-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Eruvin Chapter Six, Eruvin Chapter Seven, Eruvin Chapter Eight 

Chapter Six

Halacha 1

When a person leaves a city on Friday afternoon and deposits food for two meals at a distance from the city,1 but within its Sabbath limits,2 and by doing so establishes this as his place for the Sabbath, it is considered as if his base for the Sabbath is the place where he deposited the food for two meals, even if he returns to the city [before the commencement of the Sabbath] and spends the night in his home. This is called an eruv t'chumin.3

Halacha 2

On the following day, the person may walk two thousand cubits4 from [the place of] his eruv in all directions.5 Accordingly, when a person walks two thousand cubits from his eruv on the following day within his city, he may walk only to the end of his limit. If, however, the entire city is included within his limit, the city is considered as if it were only four cubits, and he may continue to the end of his limit beyond the city.6

Halacha 3

What is implied? When a person places his eruv one thousand cubits to the east of his house in a city, he may walk two thousand cubits eastward from the place of his eruv on the following day. He may also walk two thousand cubits to the west, one thousand from the eruv to his house, and one thousand from his house westward. He may not walk to the end of the city [limits, if they are] beyond the thousand cubits.

If there are less than one thousand cubits from his house to the boundaries of the city7 - even if his Sabbath limits end one cubit outside the city - the entire city is considered to be four cubits, and he may proceed 996 cubits beyond it to complete [his Sabbath limits of] two thousand [cubits].

Halacha 4

According [to this principle], if a person placed his eruv two thousand cubits [towards the east] of his house in a city, he would lose [the possibility of walking] throughout the entire [area of] the city [to the west]. Thus, he would be permitted [to walk] two thousand cubits from his house to his eruv and from his eruv two thousand cubits further. He may not walk even one cubit to the west of his house in the city.8

When a person places his eruv in a private domain - even if it is a metropolis like Nineveh, the ruins of a city, or a cave that is fit to be used as a dwelling - he is permitted to walk throughout its entire area and two thousand cubits beyond it in all directions.9

Halacha 5

If a person deposits his eruv within the city in which he is spending the Sabbath, his actions are of no consequence and his [Sabbath limits] should not be measured from his eruv.10 Instead, he is like the other inhabitants of the city, and may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions outside the city.

If a person deposits his eruv in the outlying areas that are included within the city's boundaries, and the calculation of [the city's] Sabbath limits begins beyond these areas,11 it is as if he had deposited it within the city [proper].

If a person deposits his eruv beyond the city's Sabbath limits, it is not considered to be a [valid] eruv.12

Halacha 6

An eruv t'chumin should be established only for a purpose associated with a mitzvah13 - e.g., a person who desires to go to the house of a mourner, to a wedding feast, to greet his teacher or to greet a colleague returning from a journey, or the like.14

[Similarly, one may establish an eruv t'chumin] out of fear - e.g., a person who seeks to flee from gentiles, from thieves or the like. If a person establishes an eruv for other reasons,15 his eruv is still valid.16

Halacha 7

All foods that may be used for a shituf may also be used for an eruv t'chumin.17 Similarly, all foods that may not be used for a shituf are also unacceptable for an eruv t'chumin.

What is the minimum measure of food acceptable for an eruv t'chumin? The [amount of] food [sufficient] for two meals for every individual.18 When the food in question is a side dish,19 the minimum measure is an amount sufficient to accompany two meals - [i.e., it is governed by] the same [laws] as a shituf.

Halacha 8

It is necessary for [the place where] a person [intends to spend the Sabbath]20 and his eruv to be in the same domain, so that it is possible for him to partake of it beyn hash'mashot.21

Therefore, if the person intends to spend the Sabbath in a public domain and places his eruv in a private domain, or if he [intends to spend the Sabbath in a] private domain and places his eruv in a public domain, the eruv is not valid. For it is impossible to transfer articles from a private domain to a public domain without performing a transgression.

Halacha 9

If, however, a person intends to spend the Sabbath in a private domain or in a public domain, and he places his eruv in a carmelit, or he intends to spend the Sabbath in a carmelit, and he places his eruv in a private domain or in a public domain, the eruv is acceptable. For during beyn hash'mashot, the time when the eruv is established, it is permitted to transfer articles from either of these domains to a carmelit for the sake of a mitzvah.

All the [prohibitions] instituted because of a Rabbinic decree were not applied beyn hash'mashot in a situation involving a mitzvah22 or in a case of urgent need.23

Halacha 10

[The following rule applies when a person] places his eruv in a closet, locks it, and then loses the key: If he can remove his eruv without performing a labor that is forbidden by the Torah, it is valid.24

If a person places his eruv at the top of a reed or a shaft that grows from the earth, it is not valid. This is a decree, lest he break off [the reed].25 If [these articles] were already detached and were implanted [in the ground], the eruv is valid.26

Halacha 11

Whenever a person deposits an eruv, he is granted four cubits [in which to carry] at the place of the eruv. Thus, if a person places an eruv t'chumin at the end of the Sabbath limits, and then the eruv rolled two cubits beyond the Sabbath limits,27 the eruv is valid; it is not considered to have left its [original] place.

If, however, the eruv rolls more than two cubits [beyond the Sabbath limits], it is not valid, for it is beyond the Sabbath limits. And [as stated previously,]28 when an eruv is placed beyond a person's Sabbath limits, it is invalid, since the person is unable to reach his eruv.

Halacha 12

The following rules apply when] an eruv rolled [more] than two cubits beyond the Sabbath limits,29 it became lost or burned, or it contained terumah and it became impure:30 If this occurred before the commencement of the Sabbath, the eruv is invalid. If it occurred after nightfall, it is valid. For an eruv is established beyn hash'mashot.31

If one is in doubt [when the above occurred], the eruv is valid, for when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable.32 Therefore, if the eruv was eaten beyn hash'mashot, it is acceptable.

Halacha 13

[The above rules are relevant in the following situation:] Two individuals told a person,33 "Go and establish an eruv on our behalf." He established an eruv for one before the commencement of the Sabbath, and for the other, beyn hash'mashot. The eruv that was established before the commencement of the Sabbath was eaten beyn hash'mashot, and the eruv that was established beyn hash'mashot was eaten after nightfall.34

[The ruling is that] both eruvin are valid.35 For [the halachic status of] beyn hash'mashot is a matter of doubt,36 and when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable.37 Nevertheless, if there is a question whether or not it is past nightfall, at the outset one should not proceed to establish an eruv.38 [After the fact,] if one established an eruv, it is valid.

Halacha 14

Although an avalanche falls on an eruv before the commencement of the Sabbath, it remains acceptable provided it can be removed without performing a [forbidden] labor. For it is permissible to remove it beyn hash'mashot,39, which is the time when the eruv is established.

If the avalanche fell on it after nightfall, it is also valid, even if it cannot be removed without performing a [forbidden] labor.40 If there is a doubt whether [the avalanche] fell before the commencement of the Sabbath or after nightfall, it is acceptable, because when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable.

Halacha 15

If, however, one established an eruv with terumah concerning which there was a doubt about its ritual purity,41 the eruv is invalid, for the meal is not fit to be eaten.42

[Similarly, an eruv is invalid in the following situation]: A person possessed two loaves of bread that were terumah. One of them was pure and one was impure, but he did not know which was pure and which was impure. Although he said, "The [loaf] that is pure, whichever it is, will serve as my eruv," the eruv is invalid, for the meal is not fit to be eaten.43

Halacha 16

If a person said: "This loaf of bread is not consecrated today, but it will be consecrated tomorrow," [and uses the loaf for an eruv,] the eruv is valid. For beyn hash'mashot, it had not as yet become definitely consecrated, and thus it was fit to be eaten before commencement of the Sabbath.

If, however, he said, "Today it is consecrated, and tomorrow it is not consecrated," it may not be used for an eruv, for it is fit [to be eaten] only after nightfall.44

Similarly, if one set aside terumah and made a stipulation that it will not become terumah until nightfall, it may not be used for an eruv. For throughout beyn hash'mashot it is tevel45 [which may not be eaten], and it is necessary for the meal [set aside as the eruv] to be fit to be eaten before the commencement of the Sabbath.46

Halacha 17

When an eruv is placed in a cemetery, it is invalid. [The rationale is that] it is forbidden to derive benefit from a cemetery.47 Since the person desires that the eruv be preserved there after it was established, he is deriving benefit [from the cemetery].48

If the eruv is placed in a beit hap'ras,49 it is valid. This applies even to a priest, for he can enter [the beit hap'ras in an elevated [closed] compartment,50 or he may sift through its earth51 [and proceed to his eruv].

Halacha 18

[These rules should be followed when] many desire to join together in an eruv t'chumin: They should each contribute enough food for two meals52 and place [the food] in a single container in [whichever] place they choose.53

If one person desires to make an eruv on behalf of many others, he must grant them a share by means of another person54 and notify them. [This is necessary because] an eruv t'chumin may not be established on a person's behalf unless he consents,55 since it is possible that he will not desire to have the eruv made in the direction chosen by the other person.

If the person is notified before the commencement of the Sabbath,56 the eruv is acceptable even though he did not express his consent until after nightfall.57 If he was not notified of the eruv until after nightfall, he may not rely on it, for an eruv may not be established after nightfall.

Halacha 19

All the individuals entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv chatzerot58 are also entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv t'chumin.

Conversely, all the individuals who are not entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv chatzerot are also not entitled to take possession of [a share in an eruv for another person] with regard to an eruv t'chumin.

Halacha 20

A person may give a ma'ah to a homeowner with the intent that [the latter] buy a loaf of bread for him and establish an eruv t'chumin on his behalf.59 [And we assume that the eruv has been established.] If, however, he gives [money] to a storekeeper or a baker, and tells him: "[Have someone] acquire a share on my behalf," we [do not assume that] an eruv has been established.60

[Even with regard to a storekeeper,] if he tells him: "Establish an eruv for me with this ma'ah," [we assume that the storekeeper] will buy bread or other foodstuffs with the money and establish an eruv on his behalf.61 If the person gave [a storekeeper] a utensil, and told him: "Give me food in exchange for this and establish an eruv [with that food] on my behalf," [we assume that he] will purchase the food and establish the eruv on his behalf.62

Halacha 21

A person may establish an eruv t'chumin on behalf of his sons and daughters who are below the age of majority63 and on behalf of his Canaanite servants and maidservants64 - with or without their knowledge.65 Therefore, if he has established an eruv for them and they have established an eruv on their own behalf, they should rely on [the eruv] established by their master.

A person may not, by contrast, establish an eruv for his sons and daughters who have passed majority, for his Hebrew servants and maidservants, or for his wife, without their consent.66 [This applies] even if they eat at his table.

If he established an eruv on their behalf, and they heard and remained silent without objecting, they may rely on the eruv that he established.67 If, however, he established an eruv for one of these people and [that person] established an eruv for himself, there can be no greater objection than this, and [that person] should rely on his own eruv.

A child of six years old or less may be taken out, relying on the eruv established for his mother.68 There is no need to set aside a separate amount of food equivalent to two meals for him.

Halacha 22

A person has the option of sending his eruv with an agent [whom he has instructed to] deposit it in the location that he desires to define as his place for the Sabbath.69 He should not, however, send [the eruv] with a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent individual, or a child,70 nor with a person who does not accept the mitzvah of eruv.71 If he sends the eruv with one of these individuals, it is not acceptable.

If, however, he sent [the eruv] with one of these individuals [with instructions for them] to bring it to a person who is acceptable [to act as an agent], so that the latter would take it and deposit it in the [desired] location, [the eruv] is acceptable. Indeed, even if he sent [the eruv] via a monkey or an elephant [it would be acceptable]. [There is, however, one stipulation: the person sending the eruv] must watch from afar until he sees the person who is unfit [to serve as an agent or the animal] reach the person who is fit [to serve as an agent], whom he has instructed to deposit the eruv.72

Similarly, many individuals who have joined together in an eruv t'chumin have the option of sending their eruv via an agent if they desire.

Halacha 23

When one person or a group of people tell another person, "Go out and make an eruv on our behalf," and the person does so, choosing the direction in which to make the eruv himself, the eruv is acceptable.73 They may rely on it,74 for they did not specify the direction [they desired].

When a person says, "Establish an eruv for me with dates," and [his agent] establishes with dried figs, or he mentions dried figs, and [the agent] uses dates, the eruv is not acceptable. Similarly, if the person asked that the eruv be placed in a closet and it was placed in a dovecote, or [he asked that it be placed] in a dovecote, and it was placed in a closet, or [he asked that it be placed] in a house, and it was placed in a loft, or [he asked that it be placed] in a loft, and it was placed in a house, the eruv is not acceptable.75

If, however, the person told [the agent], "Establish an eruv for me," without making any specifications, the eruv is acceptable regardless of whether he used dried figs or dates, or deposited it in a house or in a loft.

Halacha 24

Just as a blessing is recited [before] establishing an eruv in a courtyard or a shituf in a lane,76 so too, a blessing is recited [before establishing] an eruv t'chumin.77

[After reciting the blessing,] one should say:78 "With this eruv, it will be permissible for me to proceed two thousand cubits in every direction from this location."

If he is establishing the eruv on behalf of many individuals, he should say, "With this eruv, it will be possible for 'so and so'..." or "for the people of this community..." or "for the inhabitants of this city to proceed two thousand cubits in every direction from this location."

FOOTNOTES

1.   Note Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which states that one may establish an eruv t'chumin by actually going on Friday afternoon to the location one desires to establish as one's place for the Sabbath. The possibility of depositing food was instituted by our Sages to expedite the process of establishing an eruv t'chumin, by allowing a person to have an agent deposit food for him.

2.   See Halachah 5 regarding both these factors.

3.   In his introduction to these halachot, the Maggid Mishneh questions why two seemingly separate concepts, eruv chatzerot and eruv t'chumin, are considered to be part of the same mitzvah and are described together. He explains that since both are Rabbinic ordinances that involve placing food in a specific place so that the place will be considered to be one's base for the Sabbath, they can be considered to be a single mitzvah.

4.   A cubit is 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 57.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

5.   A person is always allowed to proceed 2000 cubits in all directions from the place where he spends the Sabbath. (See Hilchot Shabbat 27:1.) Since the place where the person's eruv is located is considered his base for the Sabbath, his 2000 cubits are calculated from this place.

6.   The Rambam's statements here parallel his statements in Hilchot Shabbat 27:5, which explain that if a person's Sabbath limits end within a private domain, he is not entitled to proceed to the end of the domain. If, however, that domain is included within his 2000 cubits, it is considered to be only four cubits.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1) quotes the view of the Tur, the Hagahot Maimoniot, and other Ashkenazic authorities, who differ and maintain that one is allowed to proceed to the end of the private domain, even if it is further than 2000 cubits from one's eruv t'chumin. The Mishnah Berurah 408:12 mentions that many authorities support this ruling. See note 8.

7.   The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss on this halachah and on Hilchot Shabbat 27:5) mentions the fact that when one establishes the Sabbath limits of a city, an imaginary square is constructed around the furthermost points in the city's area, and the Sabbath limits are calculated from that square. Thus, it is possible that land that is outside the city's urban limits may still be within the square from which its Sabbath limits are calculated.

Although a leniency is used in the calculation of the city's Sabbath limits, and these outlying areas are considered to be part of the city proper, this leniency is not turned into a stringency. If a person's 2000 cubits end beyond the city's urban area, but not beyond these outlying areas, the city is considered to be included within his Sabbath limits, and thus only four cubits in length. This concept is quoted by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1).

8.   As mentioned above, the Tur and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1) differ with the Rambam on this point and allow a person to walk throughout the entire city where his house is located, provided he sleeps in his home (Mishnah Berurah 408:11).

9.   The rationale for this decision can be explained as follows: As explained in Hilchot Shabbat 27:1, the prohibition against proceeding more than 2000 cubits from one's place of residence on the Sabbath is derived from the verse (Exodus 16:29): "No man should leave his place on the seventh day." The term "his place" refers to the private domain in which he is located, regardless if it be a house, a city, or any other location.

By making an eruv t'chumin, a person redefines the location of "his place" on the Sabbath. Even if he is not located at that place at the commencement of the Sabbath or shortly thereafter, the location where he deposits his eruv is considered to be "his place" for this Sabbath. Therefore, if that location is a private domain, that entire domain is considered to be "his place," and the calculation of his Sabbath limits begins from its boundaries.

10.  If his acts had been considered significant, he would have decreased his Sabbath limits, and not increased them. For without the eruv, he would be allowed to proceed two thousand cubits from the city limits. This follows the Rambam's conception, in contrast to that of the Tur mentioned above.

11.  In Hilchot Shabbat 27:5 (see also note 6), it is explained that the Sabbath limits of a city are calculated from an imaginary square that may include several uninhabited areas in the city's periphery. If the eruv is placed in these outlying areas, it is as if it were placed in the city proper.

12.  Since the eruv is beyond his Sabbath limits, i.e., over 2000 cubits from the city's periphery, he may not reach it during beyn hash'mashot, the time when the acquisition of the eruv takes effect (Mishnah Berurah 408:30). Therefore, the eruv is not valid. Instead, his Sabbath limits are defined from his home (Ramah, Orach Chayim 408:4).

13.  The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as saying that this applies only when one establishes one's eruv by using food. If, however, one actually walks to a place beyond a city's boundaries beyn hash'mashot, and in this manner establishes this location as one's place for the Sabbath, it is acceptable even if one's intent is not associated with a mitzvah. Although this view is not accepted by all authorities, the Mishnah Berurah 415:1 rules that in a pressing situation, one may rely on the more lenient view.

14.  The expression "a purpose associated with a mitzvah" is used in a very extended sense in this context. As an example, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 415:1) mentions a desire to take a stroll in a pleasant orchard.

15.  E.g., to proceed toward the end of one's Sabbath limits, so that one will be closer to a destination to which one desires to travel for business purposes after the Sabbath.

16.  Although this is a matter of disagreement among the Rabbis, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 415:1) follows the Rambam's view.

It must be emphasized that the "fear" mentioned by the Rambam refers to a situation when there is not an obvious danger to the person's life. Were that to be the case, he would be allowed to proceed beyond the 2000 cubits even if he had not established an eruv, for a threat to life takes precedence over the observance of all the Torah's laws with the exception of idol worship, sexual immorality, and murder.

17.  In contrast to an eruv chatzerot, for which bread alone may be used, all foods may used for an eruv t'chumin and a shituf, with the exception of water, salt, and mushrooms (Chapter 1, Halachah 8).

18.  See Chapter 1, Halachah 9. There is, however, a distinction. Regarding a shituf, even when there are thousands of inhabitants involved, it is necessary to provide two meals only for eighteen people. In contrast, regarding an eruv t'chumin, food must be set aside for every person who desires to use the eruv.

19.  See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

20.  This does not mean the person's home, or the place where he is standing beyn hash'mashot, but rather the place where he would partake of his eruv. There are times when it is impossible for him to partake of the eruv in the domain in which it is located - to cite the example given by the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:3: the eruv was placed in a tree more than ten handbreadths above the ground. In such instances, since it is not permissible to carry the eruv from the place where it was deposited to the place where the person would partake of it, the eruv is not valid.

21.  This is the time when the Sabbath commences, and it is at this hour that the eruv must be established.

22.  See Hilchot Shabbat 24:10.

23.  And, as mentioned in Halachah 6, it is only in situations such as these that it is permissible to establish an eruv t'chumin.

24.  If, however, he must perform a labor forbidden by the Torah to obtain the eruv, it is not valid. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 22.)

25.  Although Rabbinic prohibitions are not normally enforced beyn hash'mashot when a mitzvah is involved, our Sages maintained their decree in this instance. For one might think that the reed has already been detached, and it is likely that one might break it (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:3).

26.  Provided that they are not implanted in the public domain and there is not a basket, four handbreadths by four handbreadths, at their top (Mishnah Berurah 409:14).

27.  The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, noting that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion between our Sages (Eruvin 45a): Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a person is considered to be located in the midst of the four cubits he is granted. Therefore, as the Rambam states here, he is granted only two cubits in either direction. Rabbi Yehudah differs and maintains that he is granted four cubits in either direction. It is Rabbi Yehudah's view that is accepted as halachah.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that in Hilchot Shabbat 12:15 and 27:11, the Rambam follows Rabbi Yehudah's view. There is, the Maggid Mishneh maintains, a difference between the ruling regarding the laws of carrying and the ruling regarding the Sabbath limits. His distinction is explained by the Radbaz (Vol. VI, Responsum 2237), who states that for an eruv t'chumin to be effective a person must be able to reach it while standing within the Sabbath limits. If the eruv is within two cubits of the Sabbath limits, the person can bend over and reach it. If it is further away, he would have to leave his Sabbath limits to reach it. Hence, it is not valid.

The Ra'avad's decision is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 409:5).

28.  Halachah 5.

29.  As explained in the previous halachah.

30.  Impure terumah may not be eaten.

31.  If it is valid at this time, what happens to it afterwards is of no consequence (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:4).

32.  Since the eruv was acceptable when deposited, it is granted a chezkat kiyyum - i.e., we assume that the status quo remained the same and that it remained acceptable until immediately before the difficulty was discovered (ibid.).

(Although the Rambam mentions this concept in his Commentary on the Mishnah, his ruling in the following halachah implies that he does not accept this as a hard and fast rule.)

33.  They both empowered him to act as a shaliach (agent) and establish an eruv for them.

34.  This situation represents a paradox: If beyn hash'mashot is considered to be before the commencement of the Sabbath, the eruv that was eaten beyn hash'mashot is not valid. If beyn hash'mashot is considered to be after the commencement of the Sabbath, the eruv that was established beyn hash'mashot is not valid.

35.  If, however, the eruv that was established beyn hash'mashot was eaten beyn hash'mashot, it is not valid. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 393:3.)

36.  Beyn hash'mashot is the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. There is a question if this period is considered to be part of the day or part of the night. See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4.

37.  This ruling (based on Shabbat 34a) reflects a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. As mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah, most authorities maintain that an eruv t'chumin (in contrast to an eruv chatzerot) is acceptable when there is a doubt involved, only because it possesses a chezkat kiyyum - i.e., we knew that it was acceptable beforehand, and we presume that its status remained the same until we know otherwise. (See also Halachah 15.)

Therefore, other authorities (Rabbenu Chanan'el, Rabbenu Tam, Rashba) interpret this law as referring to an eruv chatzerot. There a chezkat kiyyum is not necessary, for an eruv chatzerot is only a Rabbinic institution (in contrast to an eruv t'chumin, which involves a prohibition that has its source in the Torah itself).

Nevertheless, it is possible to justify the Rambam's decision, for the prohibition against going beyond two thousand cubits is Rabbinic in origin (Hilchot Shabbat 27:1). Accordingly, since we are sure that the food set aside for the eruv can be eaten before the commencement of the Sabbath, and the doubt is merely whether the eruv was made at the proper time, the question concerns a matter of Rabbinic law. Therefore, we follow the principle, "Whenever there is a doubt concerning a point of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion is followed."

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 415:3) quotes both views (although the Rambam's appears to be favored). The Mishnah Berurah 415:11 favors the other view.

38.  Although at the outset, an eruv chatzerot may be established beyn hash'mashot (see Chapter 1, Halachah 21), the laws regarding an eruv t'chumin are more severe (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 2:6).

39.  Although the stones are muktzeh and removing them on the Sabbath would be forbidden, since a mitzvah is involved there is no prohibition against removing them beyn hash'mashot.

40.  For at the time the eruv was established it was valid, and what happens afterwards is of no consequence. (See also Chapter 1, Halachah 21.)

41.  As mentioned above, it is forbidden to partake of terumah if it is ritually impure. In this instance, however, there is a doubt and we do not know if, in fact, the terumah has contracted ritual impurity or not.

42.  With this phrase, the Rambam clarifies his position with regard to a question asked by many authorities based on the situation described in Halachah 13. As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, many authorities maintain that an eruv is considered acceptable when there is a doubt regarding its validity only when it possesses a chezkat kiyyum. As proof, they point to this law, which appears to indicate that the eruv is not considered acceptable because it was never known to be valid.

The Rambam explains that the reason why the eruv is not acceptable in this instance is not that it lacks a chezkat kiyyum, but because it may never be eaten. Because of the doubt involved, it is forbidden to partake of this loaf.

To summarize, in the instances mentioned in the previous halachot, the doubt revolves around the acceptability of the eruv. Therefore, we follow the principle, "when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an eruv, it is considered acceptable." In this halachah, the doubt is whether the terumah may be eaten. This is a question of Torah law, and we are required to rule stringently (Noda BiY'hudah, Yoreh De'ah, Vol. I, Responsum 65).

43.  Although there is a pure loaf there, since we do not know which loaf it is, the meal is not fit to be eaten.

44.  We are not certain that the sanctity with which it had been endowed has departed until nightfall. At that time, it is too late to establish an eruv.

45.  Food from which terumah and/or the other agricultural requirements were not separated. It is forbidden to be eaten until these separations are made.

46.  See Chapter 1, Halachah 22.

47.  This ruling is the subject of a debate among our Sages (Eruvin 26b). The Rambam follows the more stringent view. Although other authorities accept the more lenient ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 409:1) cites the Rambam's decision. (See Be'ur Halachah.)

48.  The difficulty is not in the actual placement of the eruv beyn hash'mashot, for the placement of an eruv is a mitzvah and the mitzvot were not given for our personal benefit. The difficulty arises afterwards. Since the person desires that the eruv be maintained in the cemetery, he is deriving benefit from it. Hence, it is forbidden to establish an eruv in this manner (Eruvin 31a; Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:1).

(See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, who asks why the eruv is unacceptable. Although it is forbidden to derive benefit from the cemetery in this manner, the fact that a person violates this prohibition should not invalidate his eruv.)

49.  A field or yard that was plowed despite the fact that a grave was located there. Our Sages feared that some of the bones of the corpse became strewn throughout the field. Hence, they considered it to be impure ground (Hilchot Tum'at Meit 10:1).

50.  A compartment carried by other people or animals. Since there is a board below him, he does not contract ritual impurity when he passes above a grave or a corpse (tum'at ohel). (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, ibid..)

51.  Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.). Others explain that this refers to blowing away any chips of bone.

52.  In contrast to an eruv chatzerot, the equivalent of two meals is required for every participant in the eruv, regardless of the number of the participants. The rationale is that through depositing the eruv, the person establishes the place in which he has deposited it as his "place" for the Sabbath. This must be done for every person participating in the eruv (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 8:1).

53.  Note the parallel to Chapter 1, Halachah 17.

54.  As in Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

55.  In contrast to an eruv chatzerot, which, in most circumstances, is considered to be a benefit to a person unless he explicitly objects, an eruv chatzerot is dependent on the person's consent. For by extending his Sabbath boundaries in one direction, it reduces them in the other direction.

56.  The Mishnah Berurah 413:6 cites opinions that state that it is acceptable if one received notification beyn hash'mashot.

57.  Eruvin 82a, explains that thisis dependent on the principle of b'reirah - i.e., when a person decides to rely on the eruv retroactively, it becomes clarified that this was his original intent.

58.  See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

59.  In contrast to a storekeeper or a baker, we assume a private person will fulfill the request made of him.

Generally, our Sages ordained that even when a purchaser has already paid for the item he purchased, the transaction is not finalized until he draws the item he purchased after him [(meshichah), Hilchot Mechirah 3:1]. In this instance, they allowed leniency, accepting the Torah's ruling that a sale is finalized by the purchaser's payment of money.

60.  For it is possible that the storekeeper will forget and not have another person acquire a share in the eruv (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah). Note the Maggid Mishneh, who offers a different explanation.

See also the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 369:1), who interpret these laws as referring to an eruv chatzerot and do not mention them within the context of an eruv t'chumin.

61.  Since the person makes an explicit statement, we assume that the storekeeper will remember to do so.

62.  The Maggid Mishneh explains that, in contrast to a transaction made with money, a transaction made by exchanging articles is completed at the moment of the exchange. (See Hilchot Mechirah 5:1.) Therefore, the bread belongs to the person and can be used for the eruv.

Based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah cited previously, Rav Kapach offers a different interpretation: that since he will have to appraise the utensil or sell it, the storekeeper will remember to establish the eruv.

63.  Children below the age of majority do not have an independent halachic status.

64.  Canaanite servants are obligated to fulfill all the negative commandments of the Torah (including the obligation to keep the Sabbath limits). They are not, however, granted any independent decision-making capacity, and instead are considered as their owner's property.

65.  The Shulchan Aruch 414:1 states that this ruling applies even if they do not depend on their father or master for their sustenance.

66.  All these individuals possess the halachic right to make their own decisions, and their relationship with their father, master, or husband is no different from that between two other individuals.

67.  Since there is a high probability that these individuals will desire to rely on this eruv, there is no need for them to express their consent. The failure to object is sufficient. The Mishnah Berurah 414:4 adds a further leniency. Even if they were not notified about the eruv until after nightfall, since it can be assumed that they will desire to rely on the eruv, it is acceptable.

68.  In other halachic contexts as well (see Hilchot Sukkah 6:1), a child is considered to be dependent on his mother until the age of six. (See the Mishnah Berurah 414:7, which cites other opinions that require a separate eruv to be established for a child below the age of six.)

69.  And having charged the agent with this mission, he can rely on the agent to have deposited the eruv. He need not check to see if he has, in fact, done so (Eruvin 32b).

70.  These individuals are not considered to be responsible for their actions and may not serve as agents. There is, however, a difference regarding an eruv chatzerot, for in that context, all that is necessary is that they collect the food.

71.  I.e., a Sadducee or a Samaritan (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 3:2). Needless to say, a gentile may not serve in this capacity, for he can never serve as an agent.

72.  The only reason it is necessary for him to watch is so that he knows that the eruv has in fact reached his agent (Eruvin, ibid.).

73.  The Maggid Mishneh explains that since this is a question of Rabbinic law, the principle of b'reirah is employed. This means that retroactively, it is considered that the decision made by the agent expressed the intent of the person who charged him with establishing the eruv.

74.  Even if they did not know the direction in which the eruv was established until after nightfall (Maggid Mishneh, Mishnah Berurah 409:52).

75.  Because the agent did not carry out the instructions given to him. These rulings apply regardless of whether the agent establishes the eruv with food belonging to him or with food belonging to the person who sent him (Mishnah Berurah 409:53).

76.  Chapter 1, Halachah 16. The very same blessing is recited for an eruv t'chumin. See also the notes on that halachah, which explain why a blessing is recited before the performance of a Rabbinic commandment.

77.  Note the Ra'avad, who objects to the recitation of a blessing for this mitzvah, for in contrast to other Rabbinic mitzvot, the institution of an eruv t'chumin does not introduce any new practice. Even an eruv chatzerot makes one conscious of the prohibition against carrying in a public domain. An eruv t'chumin, by contrast, merely grants a person a leniency.

The Maggid Mishneh explains the rationale for the Rambam's ruling. In practice, as stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 415:4), the custom is to recite a blessing.

78.  Note the Mishnah Berurah 415:15, which states that if a person fails to make a statement of this nature, the eruv is not acceptable. As mentioned in the notes on the following chapter, this applies, however, only when one has deposited food for the eruv, and not when one has actually walked there oneself.

See also the Mishnah Berurah 415:16, which mentions that in his statement the person should specify that he is establishing the eruv for the following day, or for all the Sabbaths of the coming year.

Chapter Seven

Halacha 1

When a person left his city on Friday and stood in a specific place within the Sabbath limits, or at the end of the Sabbath limits, and said,1 "This is my place for the Sabbath," although he returns to his city and spends the night there, on the following day he is permitted to walk two thousand cubits from that place in every direction.

This is the principal manner [of establishing] an eruv t'chumin - actually to go there by foot.2 [The Sages allowed] one to establish an eruv by depositing an amount of food sufficient for two meals in the place - although one did not actually go there and stand there - to expedite matters for a rich person, so that he will not have to travel by himself, and could instead send his eruv with an agent who will deposit it for him.

Halacha 2

Similarly, when a person decides to establish his place for the Sabbath in a specific location - e.g., at a tree, a house, or a fence that he can identify, and at nightfall:

a) there are two thousand cubits or less between him and that place; and

b) he sets out to reach that place and establishes it to be his place for the Sabbath, on the following day, he may proceed to that desired location and continue two thousand cubits in all directions. [Moreover, this law applies] even when he did not actually reach that place or stand there, but instead a friend had him turn back and spend the night at his home, or even if he himself decided to turn back, or was prevented [from going there by other factors].

[The rationale is that] since he made a resolve to establish [that location] as his place for the Sabbath, and set out for that purpose, it is considered as if he stood there or deposited his eruv there.

Halacha 3

When does the above apply? To a poor person, for we do not burden him [with the obligation of] depositing an eruv, or to a person who is in a distant place - e.g., a person on a journey who is afraid that soon night will fall. [This leniency is granted] provided there is enough time in the day for him to reach the designated place before nightfall - if he ran with all of his strength - and there are two thousand cubits or less between him and that place at nightfall.3

If, however, he was not far from the place in question,4 nor was he a poor man, or there was not enough time in the day for him to reach the designated place before nightfall if he ran with all of his strength, or there were more than two thousand cubits between him and that place at nightfall, or he did not specify the location he intended as his place for the Sabbath,5 he is not able to designate a distant location as his place for the Sabbath. Instead, he is granted no more than two thousand cubits in all directions from the place at which he is standing at nightfall.6

Halacha 4

When a person stood in a private domain before the commencement of the Sabbath and designated it as his "place" for the Sabbath, or if he was traveling on a journey and had the intent of spending the Sabbath in a private domain that he knew and [thus] designated as his "place" for the Sabbath, he is entitled to walk throughout that domain and [continue] two thousand cubits in all directions.

If, however, this private domain was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation, or was a mound or a valley [different rules apply]: If it is the size of the area necessary to grow two se'ah [of grain] or less,7 one is entitled to walk throughout that domain and two thousand cubits in all directions.8 If it is larger than the size of the area necessary to grow two se'ah [of grain],9 [one's "place"] is considered to be only four cubits in that domain, [and one may proceed only] two thousand cubits from [this place] in all directions.

The same [law applies] when one places one's eruv in a domain that was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation.10

Halacha 5

When a person [desires to] establish a distant location as his "place" for the Sabbath, but does not specify its exact location, he is not considered to have established it as his "place."

What is implied? A person was traveling on a journey and declared, "I will spend the Sabbath in such and such a place," "...in such and such a field," "...in such and such a valley," or "...a thousand cubits..." or "...two thousand cubits away from my present place," he has not established the distant location as his place for the Sabbath. [Instead,] he is entitled to proceed only two thousand cubits in all directions from the place where he is standing at nightfall.11

Halacha 6

[The following rule applies] when a person says, "I will spend the Sabbath under this and this tree," or "...under this and this rock." If there are eight cubits or more under the tree or the rock, the person has not established [the location] as his "place" for the Sabbath, because he did not specify an exact location. For were he to spend the Sabbath in a particular four cubits, [he could be in error,] lest the other four cubits be the ones defined as his "Sabbath place."12

Halacha 7

Therefore, it is necessary for a person to have the intent of establishing [a specific portion of the space - e.g.,] at [the tree's] base, its southern side, or its northern side, as his "Sabbath place."

If there are less than eight cubits under [the tree], and he intends to spend the Sabbath under it, he acquires it [as his "Sabbath place"]. [The rationale is that] there is no room [under the tree] for two places, and at least a portion of his [Sabbath] "place" has been defined.13

[This is the course of action to follow when] two people were coming on a journey, and one is familiar with a tree, fence, or other place that he desires to establish as his place, and the other is not familiar with the place. The person who is unfamiliar [with the place] should entrust the right to establish his "Sabbath place" to the one who is familiar with the place, and the latter should have the intent that he and his colleague should spend the Sabbath in the place with which he is familiar.

Halacha 8

[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a city have sent a person to deposit their eruv in a specific place, he set out on his way, but a colleague had him return, and he did not deposit the eruv [on behalf of the inhabitants]: Since their eruv was not deposited in the desired location, [that location] is not established as their "Sabbath place," and they are not allowed to walk more than two thousand cubits in all directions from [the boundary of] their city.

[The person who went to deposit the eruv], by contrast, is considered to have established that location as his "place" for the Sabbath, because he had set out on the way to that location with the intent of establishing it as his "Sabbath place."14 Therefore, on the following day, he is permitted to proceed to the [desired] place and continue two thousand cubits from it in all directions.

Halacha 9

The statement made previously,15 that a person who desires to establish a location as his Sabbath place from a distance need merely set out on the way, does not mean that he must depart and begin walking through the fields. Even if he merely descended from the loft with the intent of proceeding to [the desired] place, and before he left the entrance of his courtyard, a colleague prevailed on him to return, he is considered to have set out [on his way], and may establish his "Sabbath place" in that location.16

When a person establishes a location as his "Sabbath place" from a distance, he need not make an explicit statement, "This and this location is my 'Sabbath place.' It is sufficient for him to make a resolve within his heart and to set out on the way [to] establish that location as his "Sabbath place."17

Needless to say, a person who traveled by foot and actually stood at the location that [he desired to] establish as his "Sabbath place" need not make a statement. Making a resolve within his heart is sufficient to establish [the location as his "Sabbath place"].

Halacha 10

When students who sleep in the house of study, but go and eat their Sabbath meals [in the homes of] people who live in the fields and the vineyards who show hospitality to wayfarers passing through, [the house of study is considered their "Sabbath place"] and not the place where they eat.18

They may walk two thousand cubits from the house of study in all directions. [The rationale is] that were it possible for them to eat in the house of study, they would not go to the fields at all. They consider the house of study alone as their dwelling.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As mentioned in Halachah 9, there is no need to make an explicit statement. It is sufficient to make a mental resolve.

2.   This point is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Sages (Eruvin 4:9). Rabbi Meir maintains that the fundamental provision for establishing an eruv t'chumin involves depositing food. An allowance was made, however, for a poor person who could not afford to deposit food; he was permitted to establish an eruv by actually going to the desired place.

Rabbi Yehudah differs and states that the fundamental provision involves actually being at the place. Our Sages granted a leniency to a rich man, however, and allowed him to employ an agent to deposit food. As the Rambam states, the halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah.

3.   I.e., the person could not reach the intended place before nightfall if he continued at his present pace, but could reach it if he ran with all his might. We do not require him to make this effort, and allow him to establish the eruv by intent and continue walking at his normal pace (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 409:11).

4.   I.e., if at the outset he was at home, but was simply too lax about establishing an eruv. (See Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:13.)

5.   See Halachot 5-7.

6.   The Rambam's ruling implies that the person's intent is of no consequence whatsoever, and his "place" for the Sabbath is the place where he is standing at nightfall.

The Ra'avad differs regarding the instance when there are more than two thousand cubits between the person and the location he intended to be his "Sabbath place." The person's intent establishes that location as his "Sabbath place." Since there are more than two thousand cubits between the person and his "place," he is compared to one who has gone beyond his Sabbath limits and is entitled to walk only within a square of four cubits. (See Hilchot Shabbat 27:11.)

Although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:11) mentions both views, it appears to favor that of the Ra'avad. The Be'ur Halachah notes that the Ra'avad's views are shared by the Rashba, Rabbenu Asher, and many others. Hence, he suggests that it be followed.

7.   I.e., 5000 square cubits.

8.   I.e., there is no difference between it and an ordinary private domain.

9.   Because of its size, and the fact that it was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation, our Sages feared that it might become confused with a private domain. Hence, they applied more stringent rules. (See Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 16.)

10.  From the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Shabbat 27:4, the Maggid Mishneh infers that if the person stands within a large private domain that was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation on Friday and establishes it as his "Sabbath place," he may walk throughout its entire area and two thousand cubits in all directions. This opinion is not accepted by the Rashba and other authorities, and it is their view that is cited by the Shulchan Aruch 396:2.

11.  Based on their interpretation of Eruvin 49b, the Ra'avad, the Rashba, Rabbenu Asher, and others differ with the Rambam's ruling in this instance. Rather than totally ignore the person's intent, these authorities maintain that he is allowed to consider the distant location as his "Sabbath place." There is, however, a restriction. Since he did not specify his place, he is penalized according to the size of the location.

To cite the example mentioned in the following halachah: a person desires to establish a tree as his "Sabbath place." He does not specify his place and there are 20 cubits under the tree. According to the Rambam, his intent is ignored entirely, and his Sabbath limits are measured from the place where he is standing at nightfall. According to the other authorities, his "Sabbath place" is considered to be the tree, and it is from there that his Sabbath limits are measured. Nevertheless, because he did not specify his desired location, instead of being granted two thousand cubits in all directions, he is granted only 1980 cubits [i.e., 2000 minus 20 (the size of the area under the tree)].

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 409:11) mentions both views, but appears to favor that of the other authorities. The Eliyahu Rabba states that the view of the other authorities should be followed. The Be'ur Halachah, by contrast, states that consideration should also be given to the Rambam's view.

12.  We are not concerned with which of the eight cubits the person will use while under the tree, for all these eight cubits are within the person's Sabbath limits. The question is which four of these eight cubits will be considered to be one's "Sabbath place" regarding the determination of the Sabbath limits. For this, the precise determination of one's "Sabbath place" is the matter of focus (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:7.)

13.  I.e., regardless of the side from which one measures the two thousand cubits of the Sabbath limits, a portion of the four cubits that a person is granted will be included in the four cubits from which the Sabbath limits are measured. This must be so, for there are less than eight cubits under the tree (ibid.).

14.  See Halachah 2. However, Rashi (Eruvin 52a), Rabbenu Yehonatan, the Rashba and many other authorities maintain that the leniency mentioned in Halachah 2 applies only when a person is on a journey, but not when the entire purpose for his setting out is to deposit an eruv. Their views are cited in the Mishnah Berurah 410:2.

15.  Halachah 2.

16.  Eruvin 52a relates that Rav Yehudah bar Ishtata brought Rav Natan bar Oshaya a basket of fruit for the Sabbath. Although it was late on Friday afternoon, Rav Yehudah turned to leave so that he could establish an eruv t'chumin to enable himself to return home on the following day. Rav Natan let him descend a single step and then told him to stay.

17.  Rashi (Eruvin 52a) and other authorities differ, and state that this leniency applies only when a person has two homes whose Sabbath limits are adjoining. In this instance, it is clear that even though a colleague prevailed upon him to return, his intent was to establish his "Sabbath place" at the desired location so that he could proceed to his other home.

When, however, a person does not own a home in the adjoining area, and a colleague is able to prevail upon him to return, he is not able to establish a "Sabbath place" in a distant location, unless he makes an explicit statement to that effect. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 410:2) quotes the Rambam's view, while the Mishnah Berurah 410:7 mentions the other opinions.

18.  This applies even if during beyn hash'mashot they are at the homes of their hosts (Mishnah Berurah 409:39).

Chapter Eight

Halacha 1

One may not deposit two eruvin - one in the west and one in the east - so that one will be able to walk for a portion of the day [in the direction of] one of the eruvin, and to rely on the second eruv for the remainder of the day. [The rationale is that] one may not make two eruvin for a single day.1

If a person erred, and established two eruvin in two different directions, because he thought that this was permitted, or he told two people to establish an eruv for him, and one established an eruv to the north and one established an eruv to the south, he may walk only in the area common to both of them.

Halacha 2

What is meant [by the expression], "he may walk only in the area common to both of them"? That he may walk only in the area that is within [the Sabbath limits] of both of these locations. [For example,] if one [of his agents] deposited an eruv 1000 cubits to the east [of his city's periphery] and the other deposited an eruv 500 cubits to the west, the person for whom the eruvin were deposited may walk only 1000 cubits to the west, as would be permitted [the agent] who established the eruv in the east, and 1500 cubits to the east, as would be permitted [the agent] who established the eruv in the west.

Therefore, if one established an eruv 2000 cubits to the east and the other established an eruv 2000 cubits to the west, the person may not move from his place.

Halacha 3

It is permissible for a person to establish two eruvin in two opposite directions and make the [following] stipulation: "If tomorrow there is a mitzvah or a necessity that arises and requires me to walk in this direction, then it is this eruv that I am relying upon, and the other eruv is of no consequence. If, by contrast, it is necessary that I go to the other direction, the eruv [in that direction] is the one on which I will rely, and the first eruv is of no significance.2

"If I am required to go in both directions, I may rely on whichever of the eruvin I desire, and thus go in whichever direction I desire. If nothing [out of the ordinary] arises, and I am not required to go in either direction, neither of the eruvin is of consequence, nor do I rely on them. Instead, my situation is the same as that of any other inhabitant of my city, and I may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions from the city's wall."

Halacha 4

Just as it is forbidden to proceed beyond a city's [Sabbath] limits on the Sabbath, so too, it is forbidden to proceed beyond those limits on the holidays and on Yom Kippur.3

Just as a person who transfers an article from one domain to another on the Sabbath is liable, so too, a person who transfers an article from one domain to another on Yom Kippur is liable.4 On the holidays, by contrast, it is permitted to transfer articles from one domain to another.5

Therefore, eruvin should be established in courtyards and shitufim should be established in lanes for Yom Kippur, as they are established for the Sabbath.6 Similarly, eruvei t'chumin may be established for Yom Kippur and the holidays as they are established for the Sabbath.

Halacha 5

[The following rules apply to] a holiday that occurs next to the Sabbath - whether before it or after it - or to the two days of a holiday as observed in the diaspora: A person may establish two eruvin in two opposite directions and rely on either for the first day, and the other for the second day.7 Similarly, he may establish a single eruv in one direction and rely on it for one of the two days, and on the other day consider himself like the other inhabitants of the city8 - i.e., it is as if he did not made an eruv, and thus he is entitled to proceed two thousand cubits in all directions [from the city's periphery].

When does this apply? To the two days observed as holidays in the diaspora. Regarding the two days of Rosh HaShanah [different rules apply]. They are considered to be a single [extended] day,9 and one may establish an eruv in one direction alone for both these days.10

Halacha 6

Similarly, a person who [deposits] an eruv [t'chumin] may make [any of the following] stipulations: "On this Sabbath, my eruv shall be in effect, but not on another Sabbath," or "On another Sabbath [my eruv shall be in effect],11 but not on this Sabbath."

[Similarly, he may stipulate that the eruv shall be in effect] on the Sabbaths but not on holidays, or on holidays and not on Sabbaths.

Halacha 7

When a person tells five others, "I am establishing an eruv on behalf of one of you, whom I will choose [later]. If I choose, that person will be able to go. If I do not choose, he will not be able to go." Even if this person chooses [a companion] after nightfall, he may go. For the principle of b'reirah applies12regarding a matter of Rabbinic law.13

Similarly, a person may establish an eruv for all the Sabbaths of the year and stipulate, "If I desire [to rely on the eruv], I may go, and if I do not desire [to rely on it], I may not go - and I will be [governed by the same rules] as the other inhabitants of my city." He may go on whichever Sabbaths he desires, even if he does not make the decision to go until after nightfall.

Halacha 8

[The following rule applies] when a person establishes an eruv for the two days of a holiday as observed in the diaspora or for a Sabbath and a holiday [that are celebrated consecutively]: Even when the person establishes a single eruv in one direction for both days, the eruv must be accessible14 in its [designated] location on both the first and second nights throughout [the period of] beyn hash'mashot.

What should he do? He should take [the eruv to the desired place] on the eve of the Sabbath or on the eve of the holiday, and wait until nightfall. He may then take it in his hand and carry it away, if it is a holiday.15 On the following day, he should take it16 to the same location,17 deposit it there until nightfall and eat it18 if it is Friday night, or take it with him if it is the night of a holiday.

[This is necessary, for] they are two different expressions of holiness, and are not considered to be a single [extended] day with regard to which it would be possible to say on the first night that one established the eruv for both days.19

Halacha 9

[In the situation described in the previous halachah,] were the eruv to be eaten on the first day, it is effective for the first day, but the person [may not establish] an eruv [with food] for the second day.

If he established an eruv by walking [to the desired location] on the first day, he may establish an eruv for the second day only by walking to the same location20 and making the resolution21 that he is establishing this as his "place" for the day.

If he established an eruv with bread on the first day [he has two options]: If he desires to establish an eruv by walking [to the desired location] on the second day, the eruv is acceptable. If he desires to establish an eruv by depositing a loaf of bread, [he may,] provided he uses the same loaf of bread that he used the first day.22

Halacha 10

When Yom Kippur [would] fall on Friday or on Sunday during the era when the sanctification [of the moon] was dependent on its being sighted] by witnesses,23 it appears to me24 that [the two days] are considered to be one [extended] day25 and are considered to be one continuum of holiness.26

Halacha 11

The statement made previously27 that a person may establish two different eruvin in two directions for two days applies only when it is possible for the person to reach both of the eruvin on the first day [without departing from his Sabbath limits]. If, however, it is impossible on the first day for him to reach the eruv for the second day, the eruv for the second day is invalid.28

[The rationale is that] the mitzvah of eruv [can be fulfilled only] with a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day. Since the person may not reach the eruv [intended for the second day] on the first day [because it is beyond his Sabbath limits], it is not considered to be a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day.

Halacha 12

What is implied? If a person deposited an eruv two thousand cubits eastward of his home and relied on it for the first day [he is forbidden to walk westward at all].29 [Therefore,] if he deposited an eruv one cubit, one hundred cubits, or one thousand cubits to the west and relied on it for the second day, the second eruv is invalid.

[The rationale is that] the second eruv is not fit for him on the first day, for he may not reach it, since he is not able to proceed toward the west at all.

Halacha 13

If, however, he deposited his eruv one thousand five hundred cubits eastward of his home and relied on it for the first day, and deposited a second eruv within five hundred cubits to the west of his house and relied upon it for the second day, the eruv is valid. For it is possible for him to reach it on the first day.

Halacha 14

When a holiday falls on a Friday, it is forbidden to establish an eruv [for the Sabbath] on the holiday: neither an eruv chatzerot nor an eruv t'chumin.30 Instead, one should establish the eruv on Thursday, the day prior to the holiday.

If the two days celebrated as a holiday in the diaspora fall on a Thursday and a Friday, one should establish both an eruv chatzerot and an eruv t'chumin on Wednesday. If a person forgot, and did not establish an eruv beforehand, he may establish an eruv chatzerot in a conditional manner on Thursday and Friday.31 He may not, however, do this with regard to an eruv t'chumin.32

Halacha 15

What is implied? On Thursday, the person should make the following stipulation:33 "If today is a holiday, my statements are of no consequence. But if not, this should be [accepted as] an eruv."

On the following day, he should again establish the eruv34and say, "If today is a holiday, I have established my eruv yesterday, and my statements today are of no consequence. If, however, yesterday was the holiday, this should be [accepted as] an eruv."

When does the above apply? To the two days observed as holidays in the diaspora. The two days of Rosh HaShanah, by contrast, are considered to be one [extended] day. Therefore, with regard to them, it is possible to establish an eruv only on the day prior to the holiday.

(Blessed be God who grants assistance.)

FOOTNOTES

1.   This principle is based on the following concept: Since an eruv t'chumin establishes a particular location as a person's place for the Sabbath, only one such place can be established, and not two.

2.   As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, this halachah is dependent on the concept that in cases of Rabbinic law, the principle of b'reirah applies. Thus, retroactively it is considered that at the commencement of the Sabbath, the person had the intent of establishing an eruv in the direction that he was eventually required to proceed.

3.   See Tzafenat Paneach (in his gloss on Hilchot Shabbat 27:1), who states that the Rambam considers the limits on travel on the holidays and on Yom Kippur as Rabbinic in origin. In support, he cites the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chapter 19, regarding the negative commandments punishable by lashing: "A person who goes beyond the [Sabbath] limits on the Sabbath, a person who performs a forbidden labor on a holiday."

4.   The liability incurred by the violator is somewhat different. A person who willfully performs any of the Sabbath labors is liable for execution, while one who violates a forbidden labor on Yom Kippur is liable only for karet. (See Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 1:2.)

5.   See Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:4, which states that since the prohibition against the forbidden labor of transferring articles was lifted on the holidays regarding the preparation of food, it was lifted entirely.

6.   See Maggid Mishneh and the Mishnah Berurah 416:31, which mention opinions that see a benefit in the establishment of eruvin in courtyards on the holidays as well.

7.   Although for a single Sabbath one may not establish eruvin in two opposite directions, this rule does not apply when the Sabbath and a holiday follow one another. The Sabbath and the holidays represent two different expressions of holiness (Eruvin 38b). Therefore, the location defined as one's "place" - and thus an eruv established - for one does not necessarily apply regarding the other.

Similarly, regarding the two days of the holidays observed in the diaspora: in essence, the holidays were to be observed for only one day. The observance of a second day was instituted only because of uncertainty regarding the calendar. (See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:4-5.) Therefore, the two days are also considered to be separate entities.

The Ra'avad suggests qualifying the Rambam's statements. The Rambam, however, appreciated the problem that he raised and clarified the issue in Halachah 12.

8.   This also involves a redefinition of one's place. Instead of its being considered to be the location of the eruv, it is considered to be one's home.

9.   Since these two days were observed as a holiday even in Eretz Yisrael when the moon was sanctified on the basis of the testimony of witnesses (Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:7), they are considered to be a single expression of holiness. Eruvin 39b refers to them as "one long day," and the halachic requirements that apply to one day apply also to the other.

10.  See the notes on Halachah 8 with regard to whether or not it is necessary for the eruv to remain in its place for both nights of the holiday.

11.  The food deposited for the eruv must exist at beyn hash'mashot and be fit to eat. This is particularly important in the summer months, when it is possible that the eruv has become stale or has been eaten by vermin (Mishnah Berurah 416:9).

12.  Ordinarily, a person must establish his eruv before nightfall. Nevertheless, since he made a stipulation beforehand, we rely on the principle of b'reirah, and we say that retroactively it is considered to be as if he decided to rely on the eruv before nightfall (Maggid Mishneh).

13.  For other examples of the Rambam's rulings concerning this matter, see Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 5:20, Hilchot Terumah 1:21, Hilchot Ma'aser 7:1, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:15.

14.  If the eruv is not accessible - even if it is present in its designated location - it is not acceptable, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachot 8 and 12.

15.  The Maggid Mishneh explains that the removal of the eruv is merely a suggestion offered, lest a person leave the eruv in its place, and it be destroyed by vermin or the like. In a place where the eruv will surely be preserved, there is no point in removing it. Needless to say, on the Sabbath, when it is forbidden to carry, and it is forbidden to remove the eruv, this suggestion does not apply.

If one leaves the eruv in the designated place and there is a possibility that it will be destroyed, one is required to go to that place on the following day to check that it still exists (Mishnah Berurah 416:14).

16.  The Be'ur Halachah 416 asks: Since it is possible to establish the eruv by walking to the designated location (as stated in the following halachah), of what value is it that the person carried the food with him? The Be'ur Halachah explains that in this instance, we are speaking about a person who has an agent establish the eruv for him. Therefore, it is necessary for him to use food.

17.  The eruv must be deposited in the same location; otherwise, this is forbidden. Were one to change either the location (or the food used for the eruv), one would have been considered as either preparing on the Sabbath for a holiday, or on a holiday for the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 416:2).

18.  There is no obligation to eat it. The Rambam's intent is merely that from this time onward, there is no obligation that the eruv remain intact (Mishneh Berurah 416:15).

19.  The Rambam's statement implies that on Rosh HaShanah, it is necessary to establish an eruv only on the first night of the holiday. Even if the eruv is consumed before the beginning of the second day, it is acceptable, just as it would be acceptable for the entire Sabbath, even if it had been consumed after beyn hash'mashot.

The Ra'avad objects to this ruling. He maintains that the distinction of the two days of Rosh HaShanah as a single "extended" day applies only as a stringency, but not as a leniency. Therefore, the eruv established before the first night must remain in its place on the second night as well.

The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's view, bringing supports that indicate that our Sages' definition of these two days as "one long day" brings about a leniency as well as a stringency. The Mishnah Berurah 416:11 follows the Rambam's ruling.

20.  He may not establish the eruv by depositing food, for this would involve the performance of an activity on either the Sabbath or the holiday for the benefit of the other. As mentioned, it is forbidden to prepare on the Sabbath for a holiday or on a holiday for the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 416:2).

21.  He may not make a verbal statement, for this would be considered to be preparation for the coming day (ibid.).

22.  Since he uses the same loaf, he is not considered to be performing a new activity; this location had already been established as his "place," and he is merely perpetuating the existing situation. If he brought a different loaf, it would be considered to be preparing for the coming day (ibid.).

23.  According to the fixed calendar we follow at present, it is impossible for Yom Kippur to fall on either Sunday or Friday. (See Rosh HaShanah 20a.)

24.  This expression implies a ruling for which the Rambam has no explicit source in the Talmud, but which he arrived at through a process of deduction.

25.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that this also implies a leniency. As indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 8, there is no need to establish an eruv on the second day.

26.  The rationale is that all the prohibitions that apply on the Sabbath also apply on Yom Kippur (Maggid Mishneh).

27.  In Halachah 5.

28.  Note the gloss of the Sefer HaKovetz on Halachah 5, which discusses whether the law in this halachah applies only with regard to a holiday and a Sabbath that follow consecutively, or also with regard to the two days of a holiday that are observed in the diaspora. The Magen Avraham 416:3 rules that the restrictions apply with regard to the two days observed in the diaspora as well.

29.  See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.

30.  For it is forbidden to prepare for the Sabbath on a holiday. (See the Mishnah Berurah 393:1, which questions whether or not an eruv established on a holiday in error is acceptable.)

Note also the Or Sameach, which explains that, according to the Rambam, it is forbidden to establish an eruv t'chumin on the first day of a holiday for the second day. (This ruling runs contrary to a decision of the Noda BiY'hudah (Vol. II, Responsum 48).

31.  In Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:14-15, when discussing the establishment of an eruv tavshilin and other similar matters, the Rambam states that in the present era, we may not make such a conditional arrangement. This leniency was granted only in the era when the establishment of the calendar was dependent on the testimony of witnesses, and the second day of a holiday was observed because of a doubt concerning the day on which the holiday should be celebrated. At present, there is no such doubt, and the second day is celebrated because of a Rabbinic decree requiring us to preserve the previous custom. (See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 5:5.)

Other authorities (see the gloss of the Ra'avad on Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov) take issue with the Rambam on this point; it is their view that is accepted as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 393:1).

32.  Beitzah 17a explains why a distinction is made between these two types of eruvin. By establishing an eruv t'chumin, a person designates a place as his home for the Sabbath, and our Sages would not permit this to be done on a holiday. In contrast, the establishment of an eruv chatzerot negates one's ownership. Therefore, greater leniency is shown.

33.  Note the Birkei Yosef (Orach Chayim 528), which states that a blessing should not be recited.

34.  The Mishnah Berurah 393:6 suggests using the same loaf of bread. Otherwise, it would be necessary to keep both loaves until the Sabbath.

-------
Hayom Yom:
•"Today's Day" Thursday, Adar I 27, 5774 • 27 February 2014
Thursday, 27 Adar I 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 120-134.
Tanya: But as for (p. 147)...neighborly love (p. 147).
My father said: Truth is the middle path. An inclination to the right, to be overly stringent with oneself and find faults or sins not in accord with the truth, or an inclination to the left, to be overly indulgent, covering one's faults or being lenient in demands of avoda out of self-love - both these ways are false.
-------
Daily Thought:
Inner Exile It is not so much that we need to be taken out of exile. It is that the exile must be taken out of us.
-------