Eruv Tavshilin
[1] (Halacha 282)
This year, because the upcoming festival of Shavuos falls on Friday adjacent to Shabbos, [the residents of Eretz Yisrael too] will need to make an "Eruv Tavshilin." In the coming days we will deal with the details of the mitzvah of the eruv. First we will open with the prohibition of cooking from one festival day for another, and afterwards we will discuss the reason for the enactment, its root, and the details of its halachos.
Question: Is it permitted on Yom Tov to cook for Shabbos or for a weekday that follows the Yom Tov?
Answer: The Gemara in Tractate Pesachim1 says: 'It was stated: One who bakes from Yom Tov for a weekday—Rav Chisda said: He is liable to lashes [since it is forbidden to cook that which is not needed for the Yom Tov]; Rabbah said: He is not liable to lashes [since there is the principle of "Ho'il" (since), as will be explained further].
Rav Chisda said he is liable to lashes: We do not say "Since guests may happen to come to him—it is fit for him." Rabbah said he is not liable to lashes: We do say "Since." [Explanation of the concept "Ho'il" (since): a dish that was cooked for the next day—since in practice this dish is fit for that very day, for if guests who had not yet eaten today were to happen upon him they would eat from this dish—therefore Rabbah holds that it is not forbidden by Torah law, and one is not liable to lashes.]
Rabbah said to Rav Chisda: According to you, who say we do not apply "Ho'il" [and therefore there is a Torah prohibition in this], how do we bake from Yom Tov for Shabbos? He said to him: Because of Eruv Tavshilin. And because of Eruv Tavshilin we permit a Torah prohibition?! He said to him: By Torah law the needs of Shabbos may be prepared on Yom Tov, and it is the Rabbis who decreed regarding it, a decree lest they say one bakes from Yom Tov even for a weekday. And since the Rabbis required an Eruv Tavshilin, there is a recognizable distinction.
And Tosafos there wrote, according to the view of Rabbah: 'And if you ask, for it is said in [the chapter] HaMatznia2: One who sweeps up and one who scrapes honeycombs... if he did so intentionally on Yom Tov he receives forty lashes—these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer... And why is he liable to lashes according to Rabbi Eliezer? Let us say "Since guests may happen to come to him"... Alternatively, it refers to one who scrapes close to sunset, such that even if guests come there is no time left in the day to eat it.'
The Baal HaMaor3 adds that even according to Rabbah, who says we apply "Ho'il," nevertheless there is a Rabbinic prohibition without an Eruv Tavshilin: 'However, even though Rabbah disagrees with regard to lashes, he agrees that ideally one should not bake... Certainly Rabbah disagrees only with regard to lashes, for he holds that there is no Torah prohibition, and in any pressing circumstance Rabbah would permit in such a case even ideally, such as from Yom Tov to Shabbos, except that the Rabbis required an Eruv Tavshilin, in accordance with his reasoning in Tractate Yom Tov [Beitzah], where he said "so that he select a fine portion for Shabbos and a fine portion for Yom Tov."'
Thus we have learned that there is a dispute among the Amoraim as to whether there is a Torah prohibition of cooking from Yom Tov for Shabbos. According to Rav Chisda there is no Torah prohibition, only a Rabbinic prohibition; and according to Rabbah it is forbidden by Torah law4 unless there is a possibility that it will be used for guests on Yom Tov; but Tosafos wrote that when the cooking is done at a time when it will no longer be fit for guests, the Torah prohibition returns.
And we have further learned that only when the prohibition is Rabbinic is there a possibility, by means of Eruv Tavshilin, to permit the preparation from Yom Tov for Shabbos.
And as a matter of halacha5 the Alter Rebbe wrote6: 'Even though it is forbidden to perform even any of the labors of food preparation for the purpose of the time after Yom Tov, nevertheless if Yom Tov falls on the eve of Shabbos, by the strict law it would be permitted to perform them on Yom Tov for the sake of the Shabbos that follows it, for one who cooks (or performs other labors) on Yom Tov for the purpose of a weekday is not liable to lashes by Torah law, since the dish is fit for that very day (unless he cooked close to nightfall, when there is no longer time left in the day to eat of it)... except that the Rabbis forbade toiling on Yom Tov for the purpose of a weekday, since it is possible to toil on the weekday itself; but the Shabbos that follows Yom Tov, since it is impossible to toil on Shabbos itself, it would have been fitting to permit toiling on Yom Tov for the honor of Shabbos, since it is a pressing circumstance in which it is impossible otherwise, and by Torah law there is no prohibition here at all when he cooks while it is still broad daylight, when there is time left in the day such that if guests who had not yet eaten today were to happen upon him they would eat from this dish that he cooks for the purpose of Shabbos... Nevertheless the Rabbis enacted that one should not cook or perform any of the other labors of food preparation on Yom Tov for the purpose of the following Shabbos, even while it is still broad daylight, unless he placed an Eruv Tavshilin—that is, that he cook one dish on the eve of Yom Tov, and this dish shall be kept by him so that he does not lose it or eat it until after he has arranged and prepared all the needs of Shabbos.'
And further on he wrote7: 'The Eruv Tavshilin is effective only to permit performing all the needs of Shabbos on Yom Tov while it is still broad daylight—that is, when there is time left in the day such that if guests who had not eaten today were to happen upon him they would eat and derive benefit that very day, before twilight, from his labor that he performed on Yom Tov; but if there is no time left in the day to derive benefit from his labor, then there is here a Torah prohibition in performing this labor... and the Eruv Tavshilin that the Rabbis enacted is of no avail to permit a Torah prohibition. And because not everyone is expert in this halacha, therefore the custom is, when Yom Tov falls on the eve of Shabbos, to advance the recitation of Maariv of Shabbos while it is still day, so that all will be zealous to hasten to finish all the needs of Shabbos before the Maariv tefillah of Shabbos.'
Notes:
1 46b ↩
2 Shabbos 95 ↩
3 Pesachim 14b ↩
4 But see what the Beis Yosef wrote in siman 527 regarding the view of the Rambam, that according to all opinions there is no Torah prohibition in preparing the needs of Shabbos on Yom Tov, and this is his language: 'In truth, the view of the Rambam... is that even one who holds of "Ho'il" also holds thus [that by Torah law the needs of Shabbos may be prepared on Yom Tov, and it is the Rabbis who decreed regarding it], for in this they do not disagree; and one must say that Tosafos hold that even though it is not explicit in the Gemara that they disagree on this, nevertheless for Rabbah there is no difference between [cooking] from Yom Tov to Shabbos and from Yom Tov to a weekday.' And see Biur Halacha s.v. "u'al yedei." ↩
5 However, the view of the Biur Halacha is that in a pressing circumstance one may be lenient even close to nightfall; and so wrote the Yalkut Yosef, Moadim, Hilchos Eruvei Tavshilin 6: 'And in any case, if he was delayed on account of some unavoidable circumstance, he is permitted to continue and cook on Yom Tov until close to sunset; and the reason for this is because we rely on the reasoning of those who say that by Torah law the needs of Shabbos may be prepared on the Yom Tov that precedes it, and only the Rabbis forbade it, and by means of the eruv they permitted it entirely.' ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch OC 527:1 ↩
7 Ibid. 527:8 ↩
[2] (Halacha 282)
Question: What is the reason for this enactment of Eruv Tavshilin?
Answer: The Mishnah in Tractate Beitzah1 says: 'A Yom Tov that falls on the eve of Shabbos... one makes a dish on the eve of Yom Tov and relies upon it for Shabbos.' And in the Gemara there: 'Whence are these matters [derived]? Shmuel said: The verse states, "זכור את יום השבת לקדשו" ("Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it")—remember it from before something comes to make it forgotten. What is the reason? Rava said: So that he select a fine portion for Shabbos and a fine portion for Yom Tov. Rav Ashi said: So that they will say, "One does not bake from Yom Tov for Shabbos"—all the more so from Yom Tov for a weekday... And the Tanna derives it from here: "את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו" ("That which you shall bake, bake, and that which you shall cook, cook")—from here Rabbi Elazar said: One bakes only upon that which is [already] baked, and one cooks only upon that which is [already] cooked. From here the Rabbis found an allusion to Eruvei Tavshilin from the Torah.'
The explanation of the reasons of Rava and Rav Ashi is set forth in the words of the Alter Rebbe2: 'And on account of two things3 the Rabbis enacted this matter: (a) In order to increase the honor of Yom Tov, so that people will say, "If for the honor of Shabbos it is forbidden to begin cooking on Yom Tov unless one has already begun to cook one dish on the eve of Yom Tov—for what he cooks on Yom Tov is only like completing that which he began on the eve of Yom Tov—all the more so it is forbidden to cook on Yom Tov for the purpose of a weekday, even if he began cooking on the eve of Yom Tov." (b) In order to increase the honor of Shabbos, for by requiring him to cook one dish on the eve of Yom Tov for the sake of preparing the needs of the Shabbos meals that follow, he is reminded of all the needs of Shabbos on the eve of Yom Tov, and selects a fine portion for Shabbos and a fine portion for Yom Tov, and does not consume everything for Yom Tov.'
Question: What is the proper time to make the Eruv Tavshilin?
Answer: The Rosh wrote4: 'And it appears that there is a practical difference between these two reasons5: for according to Rava one must make the eruv specifically on the eve of Yom Tov, so that he select a fine portion for Shabbos; and according to Rav Ashi he may make the eruv even before the eve of Yom Tov.'
And the Mechaber wrote6: 'If he placed the eruv with the intention of relying upon it for as long as it remains intact, even for another Yom Tov, ideally he should not rely upon it for another Yom Tov, but after the fact he may rely upon it.'
And the Taz wrote7: 'And the Rosh wrote that there is a practical difference between these reasons: for according to Rava one must make the eruv specifically on the eve of Yom Tov, so that he select a fine portion for Shabbos, and according to Rav Ashi he may make the eruv even before the eve of Yom Tov... And since it is not clear to us according to whom the halacha follows, the Beis Yosef ruled that ideally it is forbidden but after the fact it is permitted.'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe there: 'And according to the first reason one need not place the eruv specifically on the eve of Yom Tov; rather, it is permitted to place an Eruv Tavshilin even several weeks before Yom Tov and to stipulate over it that by this eruv it shall be permitted to cook and bake on the Yom Tov that comes to us for the Shabbos that follows it—provided only that the eruv remains intact and fit to eat, that it did not spoil in its keeping until Yom Tov, such as if he made the eruv not with a [regular] dish but with smoked meat that keeps for many days. And likewise it is permitted to place one eruv for many festival days that will fall on the eve of Shabbos, if he stipulates over it explicitly that by this eruv it shall be permitted for me to cook and bake on all the festival days of this year that fall on the eve of Shabbos for the sake of the Shabbos that follows—provided only that the eruv remains intact and fit to eat on each and every Yom Tov. But according to the second reason that we explained, one must place the Eruv Tavshilin specifically on the eve of Yom Tov, for if he placed it many days before Yom Tov, then when the eve of Yom Tov arrives he will still not be reminded of the needs of Shabbos and will not select a fine portion for its honor... Therefore, in practice, one should ideally make the eruv only on the eve of Yom Tov itself, for that Yom Tov alone, as explained according to the second reason; but after the fact, if he already made the eruv many days before Yom Tov, and on the eve of Yom Tov itself he forgot or deliberately did not make the eruv, he is permitted to rely on his eruv and to cook initially from Yom Tov for Shabbos...'
The Rebbe8 aroused [people] to make the eruv in the manner of "the zealous perform mitzvos early," and mentioned the possibility of making it even on the night of the eve of Yom Tov9. But the rabbis asked10 whether this is halacha l'maaseh, since it would seem from the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, siman 527, that the implication is [specifically] the eve of Yom Tov itself11.
And in reply the Rebbe crossed out the word "this is," and wrote: 'It is not halacha l'maaseh to be lenient(?), although in my humble opinion, in a case where one is setting out on a journey and the like, the entire day is valid, and even before that—and follow the reasoning [zil basar ta'ama] if he makes it on the "eve" of Yom Tov.'
Thus one should ideally make the Eruv Tavshilin on the eve of Yom Tov, but when there is a reason, such as one setting out on a journey and the like, he may make it even on the night of the eve of Yom Tov.
Notes:
1 15b ↩
2 OC 527:2 ↩
3 And see the Rebbe's note in Likkutei Sichos vol. 16 p. 185 note 19, and in vol. 17 p. 458 note 6, that from the style of the Alter Rebbe's language, 'And on account of two things the Rabbis enacted this matter,' it would seem that this is not a dispute but rather two reasons—except that the reason of Shabbos is not indispensable. And see further on this matter in the Pnei Yehoshua and the Tzlach on the sugya there. And see the explanation of the reasons in Likkutei Sichos vol. 16 p. 185. ↩
4 Ibid. ch. 2 siman 1 ↩
5 But see the Kol Bo siman 59, cited in the Beis Yosef ↩
6 OC 527:14 ↩
7 s.k. 13 ↩
8 Sicha of the night of Erev Rosh Hashanah 5748 - Toras Menachem 5747 vol. 4 p. 426 ↩
9 Responsa Shevet HaLevi vol. 9 siman 129 os 4. And Kovetz MiBeis Levi 7 (5755) p. 37 din 9 and note 8. Responsa Maamar Mordechai (of R. M. Eliyahu) vol. 3 OC siman 18: 'And it appears obvious that one may make the eruv from the night of the eve of Yom Tov, for the day always begins from the night.' And see also Responsa Siach Yitzchak (R. Y. Weiss) siman 242. ↩
10 Kovetz Hearos U'Biurim issue 1073 p. 128 ↩
11 To note from what Rabbi Ch. M. A. Hodakov wrote (Teshurat Kramer 5774) from Motzaei Shabbos, a reply from 5731, that on the eve of Erev Rosh Hashanah someone asked the Rebbe whether one may make an Eruv Tavshilin early in the morning, and the Rebbe answered that presumably one does it closer (to evening), for otherwise one might eat it in the meantime. ↩
[3] (Halacha 283)
The study of this halacha is dedicated in the merit of the IDF soldier Zelda Rochel bas Nechama Sara for her birthday
Question: What is needed for an Eruv Tavshilin?
Answer: The Mishnah in Tractate Beitzah1 says: 'One makes a dish on the eve of Yom Tov and relies upon it for Shabbos. Beis Shammai say: two dishes; and Beis Hillel say: one dish.' And in the Gemara there: '"את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו" ("That which you shall bake, bake, and that which you shall cook, cook")—from here Rabbi Elazar said: One bakes only upon that which is [already] baked, and one cooks only upon that which is [already] cooked.'
However, in the Yerushalmi2 the view of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, is also brought: 'It is written [Shemos 16:23], "את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו" ("That which you shall bake, bake, and that which you shall cook, cook"). Rabbi Eliezer says: one bakes upon that which is baked and cooks upon that which is cooked. Rabbi Yehoshua says: one bakes and cooks upon that which is cooked. What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? "את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו" ("That which you shall bake, bake, and that which you shall cook, cook.") What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? "את אשר תאפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו" ("That which you shall bake and that which you shall cook, cook.")'
Further in the Gemara in the Bavli3 it is brought: 'Abaye said: They taught this only with regard to a dish, but not bread.'
Thus we have three sources dealing with whether bread is also needed: (a) In the Bavli only the view of Rabbi Eliezer is brought, that a dish is required to permit cooking and something baked to permit baking. (b) But in the Yerushalmi the view of Rabbi Yehoshua is also brought, who disagrees with him and holds that cooking permits everything. (c) In addition, in the Bavli the words of Abaye are brought, who says only a dish and not bread. And the Rishonim disagreed as to how to relate to all these sources, what is primary as a matter of halacha, and what the custom is, as follows:
The Behag wrote4: 'And how do they do it? They take one loaf on the eve of Yom Tov and place in it meat or eggs or fish, as they cook.'
And in the Siddur of Rashi5 it is written: 'That one does not bake or cook from Yom Tov for Shabbos unless one made an eruv with bread and a dish; and thus he does it: he takes bread and places upon it meat or an egg or fish when they are cooked.'
And so wrote Tosafos6 in the name of Rabbeinu Tam: 'Rabbeinu Tam said that for baking one must also make the eruv with bread, and one cannot bake upon an eruv of a dish alone, for we hold like Rabbi Eliezer, who said one bakes only upon that which is baked and cooks only upon that which is cooked... And that which Abaye said, "They taught this only with regard to one dish, but not bread," that is specifically where he does not wish to bake, but if he wished to bake he would need bread.'
However, most of the Rishonim disagreed with them and held in accordance with the plain meaning of Abaye's words, that one makes the eruv specifically with a dish, as the Rif wrote7: 'As for that which you asked concerning Eruvei Tavshilin... one takes a little roasted and cooked meat.'
And so wrote the Rambam8: 'And one does not make this eruv with bread or with grits and the like, but with a dish that is a relish, such as meat, fish, eggs, and the like.'
And in the Ran9 he wrote: 'And in the Tosefta too it is explicitly proven that one dish suffices for everything, for we learn there: one makes a dish on the eve of Yom Tov and bakes and cooks upon it for Shabbos.'
However, many Rishonim wrote that although the halacha does not follow Rabbeinu Tam, nevertheless in practice the custom followed his view, to make the eruv with bread and a dish together; and thus wrote Tosafos there: 'And this did not seem correct to Rabbi Yitzchak, first because from all of these it is implied that only one dish is needed for everything, whether to bake or to cook, and that which the Talmud brings above regarding Rabbi Eliezer is not because the halacha follows him but rather it brings a mere support [asmachta] for Eruvei Tavshilin; rather, on the contrary, we hold like Rabbi Yehoshua against Rabbi Eliezer, because Rabbi Eliezer is a Shammuti [follower of Beis Shammai] and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with him in the Yerushalmi and says one bakes and cooks upon that which is cooked. And in any case Rabbi Yitzchak said: my heart did not fill me to transgress the words of my uncle [Rabbeinu Tam], and one needs two dishes, [namely] bread and a dish; and so the people practice.'
And so wrote the Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam there: 'And know that one dish without bread suffices, and so it appears from the Halachos [of the Rif], and so wrote some of the Geonim of blessed memory, and this is the view of the Ramban and the Rashba and in accordance with the words of our teacher [the Rambam]—except that the custom is to be stringent to require bread and a dish in order to remove all doubt.'
And in the Hagahos Maimoniyos there: Rabbi Yitzchak wrote that he was accustomed to make the eruv with bread and a dish in order to uphold the custom and to fulfill the view of all our teachers, even though the words of the Rivam, who ruled that one dish suffices, as explained in Tosafos, were told to him; and so too Rashi wrote that his teacher was accustomed with a dish and bread in such a case.
And as a matter of halacha the Mechaber wrote10: 'This eruv is made with bread and a dish, and if one made it only with a dish, it is permitted.' And the Taz explained11: 'And most of the poskim hold like Rabbi Yehoshua; only Rabbeinu Tam and a few opinions hold like Rabbi Eliezer; therefore it is valid at least after the fact according to Rabbi Yehoshua.'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe12: 'How is the mitzvah of placing an Eruv Tavshilin [performed]? One takes in his hand a piece of bread that contains a k'beitzah [egg's volume] and a k'zayis [olive's volume] of cooked meat or another cooked item that contains a k'zayis, so that with this bread it shall be permitted for him to bake from Yom Tov for Shabbos and with this dish it shall be permitted for him to cook from Yom Tov for Shabbos. And if he made the eruv only with a dish and did not remember until after the night of Yom Tov entered—even if it is the first day of Yom Tov of the Diaspora, which falls on Thursday, when he could make the eruv conditionally as will be explained—nevertheless he need not repeat and make the eruv, since he already made the eruv with a dish, which is the essence of the eruv.'
Thus, as a matter of halacha, the essence of the eruv is the dish, but nonetheless ideally one should also take bread.
Tomorrow we will discuss the case of one who does not plan to cook or bake—whether even so he must make an Eruv Tavshilin.
Notes:
1 15b ↩
2 Beitzah ch. 2 halacha 1 ↩
3 16a ↩
4 Siman 16, Hilchos Yom Tov p. 215 ↩
5 Siman 619 ↩
6 Beitzah 17b s.v. "amar Rava" ↩
7 Responsa siman 312 ↩
8 Hilchos Yom Tov 6:3 ↩
9 Beitzah folio 10a, of the pages of the Rif ↩
10 OC 527:2 ↩
11 s.k. 4 ↩
12 Siman 527:3 ↩
[4] (Halacha 284)
Question: We learned in the previous halacha that one also places bread in the Eruv Tavshilin out of concern for the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, that bread is specifically required in order to permit baking; if so, what is the law regarding one who needs only to cook and not to bake—does he also need bread?
Answer: Tosafos wrote1 that even according to the view of Rabbeinu Tam: 'That which Abaye said, "They taught this only with regard to one dish, but not bread," that is specifically where he does not wish to bake.' And thus, even according to Rabbeinu Tam, in such a situation there is no need for bread, and this is essentially the statement of Abaye.
And so wrote the Olas Shabbos2: 'And it appears that this is specifically when he wishes to bake bread on Yom Tov, but when he wishes only to cook and not to bake, even Rabbeinu Tam holds that a dish alone suffices—thus I found there in Tosafos.' And see also in the Mishnah Berurah3.
In practice, many are accustomed always to make it also with bread, and so wrote several of the poskim4.
Question: What is the law in a case where one made the eruv with bread alone?
Answer: In a case where one made the eruv with bread alone, the Rishonim disagreed on this. In the Shibbolei HaLeket5 he wrote: 'And if he made the eruv with bread, it exempts only bread and not a dish...'—that is, he may bake with this eruv.
But the Ohr Zarua6 wrote: 'And if he made bread alone he has done nothing; and it appears that he cannot even bake, in accordance with Abaye, who [holds] that one does not make an eruv with bread at all.'
And so wrote Rabbeinu Menachem Recanati7: 'One who makes an Eruv Tavshilin ideally needs bread and a dish or a roast; if he made a dish alone or a roast alone he relies upon it; and if he made bread alone he has done nothing, and it appears that he cannot even bake, in accordance with Abaye, that one does not make an eruv with bread at all.'
And as a matter of halacha the Eliyah Rabbah wrote8: 'But upon bread alone one may not rely, even to bake.' And so wrote the Olas Shabbos9: 'And it appears that even if he wishes only to bake bread on Yom Tov, he does not fulfill [his obligation] with bread alone; and although we hold that ideally the view is like Rabbeinu Tam, that one bakes upon that which is baked, that is specifically as a stringency but not as a leniency; and so it is explicitly stated in the Hagahos Ashri chapter 2 [siman 5].'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe10: 'But if he made the eruv with bread alone he must repeat and make the eruv, and if he did not make the eruv he is forbidden even to bake from Yom Tov for Shabbos, for this is not an eruv at all, as will be explained.'
Notes:
1 Beitzah 17b s.v. "amar" ↩
2 s.k. 2 ↩
3 s.k. 6 ↩
4 See Responsa Ohr LeTzion vol. 3 ch. 22 note 1: 'And behold, in our times, when it is uncommon to bake on Yom Tov, bread would not be needed at all even according to Rabbeinu Tam, as explained in Tosafos Beitzah 17b s.v. "omer," and cited in the Beis Yosef here. And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah s.k. 6. And in any case the custom is to place bread too for the Eruv Tavshilin.' And so wrote Rabbi Wosner in Kovetz MiBeis Levi 7, 5755, p. 35 os 2. And in explanation of the matter, it may be said, based on the words of Rava that the eruv is so that he select a fine portion for Shabbos, and therefore one joins bread to the dish, which is the essence of the meal. And see at length what Rabbi A. D. Auerbach wrote in Sefer HaZikaron Mevakshei Torah p. 82; and to note from the language of the Behag: 'And how do they do it? They take one loaf on the eve of Yom Tov and place in it meat or eggs or fish, as they cook.' And Rashi that was cited yesterday: 'He takes bread and places upon it meat or an egg or fish when they are cooked'—that the dish that is brought should be not merely a dish fit to be a relish for the bread, but that one actually makes the eruv and places the dish within the bread—"melufas" [dipped/joined]. ↩
5 Seder Atzeres siman 246 ↩
6 Vol. 2, Hilchos Yom Tov siman 343, cited in the Hagahos Ashri, Beitzah ch. 2 siman 5 ↩
7 Piskei Halachos siman 146 ↩
8 s.k. 4 ↩
9 s.k. 4 ↩
10 Siman 527:3 ↩
[5] (Halacha 285)
Question: A person who prepared in advance, on the eve of the festival, all of the Shabbos foods—does he need to make an Eruv Tavshilin for the kindling of the Shabbos lights?
Answer: The Gemara in Tractate Beitzah1 says: 'Come and hear: One who did not place an Eruv Tavshilin—this one shall not bake, nor cook, nor insulate [food], neither for himself nor for others.' And from the fact that the Gemara does not mention that he shall not kindle a light, some derived that the kindling of the light is not connected to the Eruv Tavshilin.
But further on, the Gemara2 says: 'For Rav Huna said: One who did not place an Eruv Tavshilin—they bake for him one loaf of bread, and cook for him one pot, and kindle for him the light.' From this it is implied that without the eruv he cannot kindle the light.
And the Ohr Zarua wrote3: 'But Rabbeinu Yitzchak son of Rabbi Asher, of blessed memory, was in doubt whether one must say "and to kindle a light," for so it is implied above that one need not say it, as it was taught: one who did not place an Eruv Tavshilin—this one shall not bake, nor cook, nor insulate; but "he shall not kindle the light" is not taught... And also that which Rav Huna said, "and they kindle for him the light," does not appear to be stated because of the eruv, for he did not say "and they kindle for him one light" as he said "one loaf" and "one pot"; rather, Rav Huna mentioned all the things one cannot do without them, because he needed to inform [us] of matters that are a person's essential sustenance...'
And indeed, in practice the Rishonim disagreed regarding the text of the Eruv Tavshilin, whether one mentions in it also the kindling of the light or not. There are Rishonim who did not mention the kindling of the light but only baking and cooking, and such is the view of the Rif4 and the Rambam5, who did not mention the kindling of the light in the text of the eruv; and the Beis Yosef wrote6: 'From the words of the Rambam that I cited regarding the wording of the eruv (that he did not mention in the wording of the eruv "and to kindle a light"7), it appears that the kindling of the light does not depend on the eruv'8.
And on the other hand, in the name of the Behag they wrote9 that in his text it is written: 'to bake and to cook and to do all our needs and to kindle a light.' And so wrote Tosafos10, the Rashba11, and the Ran12. And this is the language of the Rosh13: 'From the fact that it says "and they kindle for him the light" [we learn] that one who did not make an eruv is forbidden even to kindle... Therefore the custom, when placing the eruv, is to say "to bake and to cook and to kindle and to insulate." And even though I explained above that they enacted [the eruv] only for the essence of the meal, that is [only] that one need make the eruv only from bread and a dish, which are the essence of the meal; but one must mention every thing that is forbidden to do without an eruv.'
Thus the Rishonim disagreed as to whether one mentions in the text of the eruv the kindling of the light; and some say that those who hold one need not mention it [hold so] because an Eruv Tavshilin is not needed for the kindling of the light.
Based on this, the Mechaber wrote14: 'One who did not make an eruv is permitted to kindle the Shabbos light; and some forbid it.'—that is, the primary [ruling] is like the view of the Rambam, but nevertheless, as a stringency, he was stringent like those who forbid, and therefore he wrote to say in the text15: 'By this it shall be permitted for us to bake and to cook and to insulate and to kindle a light...' And so he wrote16: 'And if there are no others present who made an eruv, some say that it is permitted to bake, sparingly, one loaf and to cook one pot and to kindle one light.'
However, in the view of the Alter Rebbe it appears that he accepted as primary the view of the Rosh, that one is obligated to make an eruv for the kindling of the light, and he did not mention the view of the Rambam (in the words of the Beis Yosef); and this is his language17: 'And afterwards he says: "By this it shall be permitted for us to bake and to cook and to insulate and to kindle a light..."' And further on he wrote18: 'And they did not require one to specify [all], only the baking and the cooking, since they are the essence of all the labors of food; and the insulating and the kindling of the light, because if he had not placed an Eruv Tavshilin it would be more fitting to forbid the insulating and the kindling of the light from Yom Tov for Shabbos than all the other labors, since at the time of their performance it is evident that he does them not for the need of Yom Tov, for it is not a person's way to insulate hot food that very day except for the need of the next day, and likewise it is not people's way to kindle a light while it is still day except on the eve of Shabbos for the need of Shabbos night; therefore, when placing an Eruv Tavshilin one must specify these labors more than all the other labors, which are included in it in "to do all our needs."' And he further wrote19: 'One who did not make an eruv... has no remedy except that the flour he needs to bake, and the dishes he needs to cook, and the lights he needs to kindle... And if there is no other person present who made an eruv who could transfer ownership to him of his flour and his dish and his lights, or even if there is a person who made an eruv but does not wish to transfer ownership to him, the Rabbis permitted him to prepare all the needs of Shabbos sparingly, according to his essential sustenance, on account of the honor of Shabbos—that is, that one loaf be baked for him and one pot cooked for him and one light kindled for him.'
Thus, from the words of the Alter Rebbe it appears that even for the kindling of the light there is a full obligation to make an eruv.
In practice, even a person who cooked all the Shabbos foods in advance and does not require to cook on Yom Tov for the need of Shabbos—since he must nonetheless kindle a light in honor of Shabbos20—shall make an Eruv Tavshilin with a bracha21.
Notes:
1 17a ↩
2 folio 21b ↩
3 Hilchos Yom Tov siman 347 ↩
4 Beitzah 9b ↩
5 Hilchos Yom Tov 6:8 ↩
6 OC siman 527 ↩
7 Beis Yosef, end of the siman ↩
8 But the Magen Avraham s.k. 18 wrote: 'This the Beis Yosef innovated on his own, from the fact that the Rif and the Rambam did not mention "and to kindle a light" in the text of the eruv—inferring that even without an eruv it is permitted to kindle. But it appears to me that they hold one need mention only the essence of the meal, and all the other matters are drawn after them.' ↩
9 The Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam there, and see also the aforementioned Ohr Zarua ↩
10 Beitzah folio 22a: s.v. "u'madlikin" ↩
11 Avodas HaKodesh, Beis Moed, Shaar 4 siman 2. And in the Chiddushim, Beitzah 21b ↩
12 11a s.v. "u'mid'amrinan" ↩
13 Ch. 2 siman 16 ↩
14 OC 527:19 ↩
15 527:12 ↩
16 527:20 ↩
17 527:5 ↩
18 527:7 ↩
19 Se'ifim 28-29 ↩
20 And to note that some have written (see Chut Shani, Yom Tov p. 150; Moadim U'Zmanim, new edition, vol. 2 siman 164) that even when he has no intention at all to cook and also does not kindle the light, he may make an eruv with a bracha. (And this is sweetened, for we hold that we say "Ho'il," that guests may come to him.) But many of the Acharonim disagreed with this (see Responsa Minchas Yitzchak vol. 7 siman 36; Responsa Minchas Shlomo Tinyana (2-3) siman 58; and see the following note). ↩
21 And so ruled Rabbi M. Sh. Ashkenazi, of blessed memory, and, may he be distinguished for long life, Rabbi Y. Farkash. (But see Maamar Mordechai s.k. 18 on the words of the Mechaber, who holds that the eruv for the need of the light is only a stringency, who wrote that seemingly one should not recite a bracha but concludes "and yet in practice this requires study." And the Kaf HaChaim wrote in s.k. 113: 'Therefore one who comes to make the eruv need not recite a bracha, because of "safek brachos lehakel" [in doubt regarding brochos, be lenient].' And so wrote Responsa Ohr LeTzion vol. 3 ch. 22 os 6, and see also Responsa Minchas Yitzchak vol. 9 siman 54.) ↩
[6] (Halacha 286)
The study of this halacha is dedicated in the merit of Sheina bas Nechama Sara for her birthday
Question: Which dish is effective for an Eruv Tavshilin?
Answer: The Gemara in Tractate Beitzah1 says: 'We require something that serves as a relish, and bread does not serve as a relish. And porridge too does not serve as a relish, for Rabbi Zeira said: These foolish Babylonians who eat bread with bread. Rabbi Chiya taught: Lentils at the bottom of a pot—one may rely upon them for Eruvei Tavshilin; and this is so provided there is in them a k'zayis. Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah said: The fat on a knife—one scrapes it off and relies upon it for Eruvei Tavshilin; and this is so provided there is in it a k'zayis.'
And Rashi wrote: "that serves as a relish"—'We require a relish, for then the matter is evident that it is made for Shabbos; and bread does not serve as a relish—therefore the matter is not evident, since every day there is bread.'2.
And in the Shibbolei HaLeket3 he wrote it somewhat differently: 'Abaye said: They taught this only with regard to a dish, but not bread. What is the reason? We require something that serves as a relish, and bread does not serve as a relish—meaning that the matter is not evident, since it is the way of the world to bake bread for several days, which is not the case with a relish.'
And so wrote the Mechaber4: 'This dish must be something fit to serve as a relish for bread, to the exclusion of porridge.'
And further on5 he wrote: 'One may rely, from the eve of Yom Tov, even upon lentils at the bottom of a pot, and likewise upon fat that stuck to a knife and one scraped it off, provided there is in it a k'zayis.' And the Taz wrote on this6: 'And in any case, on account of enhancement of the mitzvah, it is fitting to take a complete dish according to all opinions.'
An example of things that are not fit to serve as a relish was written by the Mishnah Berurah7: 'And it appears that potatoes whose peel one removed and cooked dry are among the things whose way is to be eaten on their own to satiate, and not to serve as a relish for bread, and one does not make an eruv with them; and likewise legumes cooked dry, called "erbes," or beans called "bob."'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe8: 'One does not make an Eruv Tavshilin except with a dish that is fit to serve as a relish for bread, such as meat, fish, eggs, and the like.'
And further on he wrote9: '...if he has another dish, one should not ideally make the eruv with lentils that remained at the bottom of a pot, nor with fat that he scraped off a knife, on account of disgrace of the mitzvah; and if he made the eruv [with them], he need not repeat and make the eruv.'
Thus we have seen that the dish in an Eruv Tavshilin must be a dish with which one serves as a relish for bread, and not something one is accustomed to eat on its own—for then it is ineffective even after the fact. But something fit to serve as a relish that is merely not dignified—one should not ideally take it, but after the fact one has fulfilled [the obligation].
Question: Why do many take an egg for the Eruv Tavshilin?
Answer: This minhag was already mentioned in the Behag10, and regarding the reason the Ben Ish Chai wrote11: 'And it is good to make the dish hard-boiled eggs, for these keep in these places that are hot, whereas meat will not keep during the time of heat for two nights and two days. And if Yom Tov falls on Thursday and Friday, the piece of meat must remain for two days and two nights—that is, until Shabbos night—and therefore it is good to make it from hard-boiled eggs, for these will keep and not spoil.' And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan12.
And the poskim wrote13 that one should be careful not to peel the egg until the time of eating it, so that it not be forbidden on account of "linas laylah" [remaining overnight].
Question: Nowadays, is there a preference for other foods over taking an egg?
Answer: Although we have seen that any dish that is not degrading may ideally be taken for an Eruv Tavshilin, the Shelah wrote14: 'I have seen many of the masses take bread and take one lowly and inferior bone of meat. Certainly, as a matter of strict law they fulfill [the obligation], but "a mitzvah is beloved in its time"15, and let this mitzvah not be light in your eyes. And not for naught did our Rabbis of blessed memory say16 that Avraham our father fulfilled the mitzvah of Eruv Tavshilin. And in the Sefer Yuchasin a secret is written regarding this matter. Therefore, every man who rejoices in a mitzvah should take bread prepared for the Shabbos morning meal, or for the third meal, and should also take an important dish prepared for him for the Shabbos meal, such as a piece of important fish, or meat, or fowl from that with which Hashem has graced him, prepared for him for the Shabbos morning meal or for the third meal. But those people who take a small bone, and in any case prepare the Shabbos meal—if so, they perform the mitzvah with disgrace for naught, and it is possible that afterwards they throw it away. Therefore it is a good minhag to conduct oneself as I have written.'
And in a similar vein it is written in the Siddur of the Arizal: 'And let it not be a goose wing or the meat of the foreleg.'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe, who wrote in the Siddur: 'On the eve of Yom Tov he takes the bread of Shabbos, and an important dish along with it, such as meat or fish.' And he did not mention eggs.
Thus, nowadays, when it is possible to preserve foods, one should endeavor to take for the eruv an important dish, such as meat or fish17.
Notes:
1 16a ↩
2 The Magen Avraham s.k. 2 wrote: 'And Rashi wrote that we require something that is not eaten every day, which makes the matter evident that one is doing it in honor of Shabbos.' However, the Alter Rebbe, and likewise the Mishnah Berurah, omitted this law, and the Shaar HaTziyun wrote the reason in s.k. 23: 'And I did not copy it, for in my humble opinion it is difficult to say so, for from the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch se'if 6 it does not appear so... Afterwards I found in the Nishmas Adam that he too wrote in accordance with our words and proved it from the law of eggs, for the Rambam wrote that it is permitted to make the eruv [with them] even though one certainly is accustomed to them even on a weekday.' ↩
3 Seder Atzeres siman 246 ↩
4 OC 527:4 ↩
5 527:6 ↩
6 OC siman 527 s.k. 7. (In the name of the Bach, though in the Bach himself it appears otherwise—see there.) ↩
7 Shaar HaTziyun s.k. 22 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch siman 527:11 ↩
9 Se'if 13 ↩
10 Siman 16, Hilchos Yom Tov p. 215 ↩
11 Year 1, Parshas Tzav - Eruvei Tavshilin 1 ↩
12 Siman 527:13 ↩
13 Nit'ei Gavriel, Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin ch. 82 din 8. Piskei Teshuvos siman 527 os 7 ↩
14 Sukkah, chapter Ner Mitzvah, os 25 ↩
15 Pesachim 68b ↩
16 Yoma 28b ↩
17 In Kovetz MiBeis Levi vol. 1 p. 52 he wrote: 'And many are accustomed to take a fish head.' ↩
[7] (Halacha 287)
Question: Must one cook the eruv dish on the eve of the festival, or may one make an eruv with a jar of gefilte fish?
Answer: The Gemara in Tractate Beitzah1 says: 'Rabbi Chiya taught: Lentils at the bottom of a pot—one may rely upon them for Eruvei Tavshilin; and this is so provided there is in them a k'zayis. Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah said: The fat on a knife—one scrapes it off and relies upon it for Eruvei Tavshilin; and this is so provided there is in it a k'zayis.' And Rashi explains: '"one may rely upon them"—from the eve of Yom Tov for the sake of the eruv, and we do not say they are insignificant and are nullified. "one scrapes it off"—from the eve of Yom Tov.'
From the words of the Gemara we learn (that when he has no other dish) one may use leftover remnants of foods that remained for him, and make the eruv with this, provided there is in these remnants a k'zayis.
And the Tur wrote2: 'Some say [it is] specifically when he cooked the lentils on the eve of Yom Tov and cut the fat with a knife on the eve of Yom Tov, for then there is a proof; but if the lentils and the fat remained from three or four days earlier, one does not rely [upon them]; and it appears that it is permitted in any manner.' That is, according to the Tur, it makes no difference whether the dish was cooked on the eve of the festival or even several days before—one may make the eruv with it.
However, the Bach there wrote: 'Some say that the view of Rashi is [it is] specifically when he cooked the lentils on the eve of Yom Tov and cut the fat with a knife on the eve of Yom Tov, for then there is a proof that he left them over and scraped them off on the eve of Yom Tov for the need of Eruvei Tavshilin and may rely upon it; but if they remained from three or four days earlier, one does not rely upon it. And the view of our teacher [the Tur] is that it is permitted in any manner, and Rashi said "from the eve of Yom Tov" only to exclude Yom Tov itself... However, it certainly appears that the choicest performance of the mitzvah is to make a dish initially for the need of Eruvei Tavshilin, as we learned "and one makes a dish on the eve of Yom Tov," etc.... for all agree that ideally the choicest performance of the mitzvah is to make a dish, except that where one forgot he relies upon it after the fact; and yet by strict law one may rely upon it even initially, even though he did not forget, except that he did not perform the choicest form of the mitzvah.'
From the words of the Bach we see that there is a deficiency in the remnants of the lentil dish, in that it was not prepared specifically for the need of Eruvei Tavshilin, and therefore he wrote that according to all opinions the choicest performance of the mitzvah is to prepare a dish specifically for the eruv.
However, we find a different understanding of the Gemara, that the deficiency in the remnants of the lentil dish is on account of disgrace of the mitzvah, as is explicit in the Alter Rebbe3, that it is on account of disgrace of the mitzvah.
And seemingly, upon these two reasons will depend the law of whether one should endeavor [as an enhancement] to cook a special dish on the eve of Yom Tov for the need of the Eruv Tavshilin, or whether there is no need for this and one may take any dish—the essence being that it be dignified for the mitzvah.
And as the Mishnah Berurah wrote4 regarding the use of the remnants of lentils for the eruv: 'And see further what was written in the name of the poskim, that it is specifically when he has nothing else with which to make the eruv—so wrote the Beis Yosef and the Acharonim; and the reason the Alter Rebbe wrote is on account of disgrace of the mitzvah; but the Bach wrote another reason, namely that it was not cooked for this purpose, for ideally the choicest performance of the mitzvah is to make a dish with intent for the sake of the eruv [and perhaps only if he cooked it for the need of Shabbos it suffices, and these are different in that they were not cooked at all for the need of Shabbos], and so he cited from the implication of the Mordechai; and all this is merely for the choicest performance of the mitzvah, but the eruv is valid even if he took things that were not cooked for this purpose, as is proven from [the case of] lentils and fat that stuck to a knife; and so wrote the Olas Shabbos and further proved it from that which is stated in the Gemara regarding salted fish that a non-Jew roasted, and he certainly did not roast them for the sake of the eruv.'
And further in the siman he added in the Biur Halacha5, in accordance with the aforementioned implication of the Bach, that it is preferable to cook for the need of the eruv specifically on the eve of Yom Tov, and this is his language: 'And it is also implied from the Beis Yosef that according to those who are stringent it is good ideally to make the dish on the eve of Yom Tov itself and not earlier, even though one designates it on the eve of Yom Tov for the sake of the eruv, for so he infers from the language of the Mishnah "and one makes a dish on the eve of Yom Tov," etc. However, if he does not have [one], it is certainly valid even ideally, provided only that he designated it for the sake of the eruv, and so I wrote above in se'if 6 in the Biur Halacha—see there.' And so wrote Responsa Ohr LeTzion6.
But as stated, it appears from the words of the Alter Rebbe (who holds that the deficiency in the remnants of the lentil dish is not because it was not made on the eve of Yom Tov itself, but rather because there is here a disgrace to the mitzvah), and in addition, from the fact that he did not mention that there is a preference to cook the eruv on the eve of Yom Tov, and likewise from what he wrote7: 'A type of small fish called koliyas ha'ispanin (which they call "tunina"), whose flesh is very soft, and one rinses them in hot water and thereby they become fit to eat raw without cooking—if he rinsed them on the eve of Yom Tov or earlier, it is permitted to make the eruv with them, for by this rinsing they are rendered fit for eating like actual cooked food.'
[From this] it is implied that there is no preference in cooking the dish for the need of the eruv, and specifically on the eve of Yom Tov; rather, the essence is to designate a fitting dish on the eve of Yom Tov for the need of the eruv.
Thus, in practice it appears from the words of the Alter Rebbe that there is no enhancement in cooking specifically on the eve of Yom Tov a special food for the need of the Eruv Tavshilin; rather, even a purchased cooked food and the like is ideally fit to make an Eruv Tavshilin over, and it is also possible with ready-made food found in a can.
It is very important to remember, and to remind others, to make an Eruv Tavshilin according to its halacha.
Chag Sameach; may the receiving of the Torah be with joy and inwardness.
Notes:
1 16a ↩
2 OC siman 527 ↩
3 Se'if 13 ↩
4 Biur Halacha siman 527:6 s.v. "adashim" ↩
5 Se'if 14 s.v. "lechatchilah" ↩
6 Vol. 3 ch. 22, and this is his language: 'And it is good to be careful about this, and to cook the eruv and to bake the eruv bread specifically on the eve of Yom Tov. And likewise if one buys bread, he should buy bread that was baked that day.' ↩
7 Se'if 12 ↩
[8] (Halacha 658)
(Continuation of Halacha number 287)
Question: Must one hold the eruv at the time of designation (1)?
Answer: The Tur wrote1: 'How does he do it? He takes the eruv in his hand and gives it to one who has a right [of acquisition], on behalf of those for whom he makes the eruv.'
And the Beis Yosef wrote: 'It is a simple matter that this speaks of one who wishes to make the eruv on behalf of others, and for that reason he must transfer ownership; for if one does not wish to make the eruv on behalf of others he need not transfer ownership at all, but rather takes the eruv in his hand and recites the bracha and says, "By this eruv it shall be permitted for us to bake," etc.' And so wrote the Bach there, and the Levush2.
And the Chida wrote3: 'However, here an action is required. See, it is called an "eruv," for one begins on the eve of Yom Tov to cook for Shabbos and mixes together the dishes of Shabbos and Yom Tov, and mere speech does not suffice. And a fool does not understand the mint of the Sages: "By this eruv"—pointing with a finger, as he holds in his hand the eruv dish. And come and see the language of the Gaon [Behag] in the Halachos Gedolos folio 36, "that it is permitted for us to bake and to cook from Yom Tov for Shabbos—and how do they do it? They take one loaf on the eve of Yom Tov and place in it meat or an egg or fish," etc.—see there. And the language of the Rif in his responsa siman 312: "he takes a little roasted and cooked meat and recites the bracha, Blessed are You, Hashem," etc., "and he also says, 'By this eruv,'" etc.—see there. And so it is proven from the language of the Rambam ch. 6 of Hilchos Yom Tov, and from the words of all the poskim.'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe4: 'How is the mitzvah of placing an Eruv Tavshilin [performed]? He takes in his hand a piece of bread that contains a k'beitzah, and a k'zayis of cooked meat or another cooked item that contains a k'zayis... And after he has taken the eruv in his hand he is obligated to recite the bracha "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of eruv," just as one recites brochos over all the other mitzvos of the Rabbis.'
And this grasping must be with the right hand, as the Alter Rebbe wrote5: 'Anything over which one recites a bracha in order to eat it, or to smell it, or to perform a mitzvah with it, one must hold in his right hand while reciting the bracha.'
Thus, before reciting the bracha one must hold the eruv in the right hand, and likewise continue to hold it during the bracha.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the reason that one must hold the eruv during the bracha, and not only during the recitation of the text of designation?
Answer: Tosafos wrote6: '"prior to their performance"—for this reason one must recite the bracha over a lulav before taking it... And yet it does not stand to reason at all that he should recite the bracha over it while it is lying in a vessel, for it is said in HaKometz Rabbah7: "Tefillin—from when does one recite the bracha over them? From the time of placement until the time of binding"; and any time the mitzvah is not ready in his hand to perform, it does not stand to reason at all to recite the bracha over it...'
That is, by law one must recite the bracha over the mitzvah when the object with which one fulfills the mitzvah is ready before him for immediate performance, as the Alter Rebbe wrote8: 'All the brochos over mitzvos one must recite before the beginning of the performance of the mitzvah; therefore over the hand-tefillin one recites the bracha after placement upon the biceps, before the binding, for this binding is the beginning of its performance; and over the head-tefillin one recites the bracha after placement upon the head, before tightening it well upon his head, for the tightening is the beginning of its performance; but one should not recite the bracha before placement upon the biceps or upon the head, because one must bring the bracha close to the performance of the mitzvah and juxtapose them as much as possible.'
And in a similar vein he wrote regarding the bracha of HaMotzi9: 'One should not recite HaMotzi before grasping the bread in his hand, just as one does not recite the bracha over mitzvos except close to their performance, when the mitzvah is ready in his hand to perform it, and not before that, as explained in siman 25.'
★ ★ ★
Question: The Sages stated a great principle that one recites all brochos "prior to their performance"—that is, before the actual fulfillment of the mitzvah; and why here does he take the eruv before the bracha?
Answer: This question is resolved based on the words of the Alter Rebbe10 (with added explanation in square brackets), and by way of introduction, [note] that the Acharonim disagreed as to whether the text recited at the time of designating the Eruv Tavshilin is indispensable (and it will be explained, God willing, in a separate halacha); and this is his language: 'But the householder himself may recite the bracha, and even though one must recite the bracha "prior to its performance" and the mitzvah has already been performed by his designation, according to the Rashal11 and the Taz12 [who held that the text of the Eruv Tavshilin is not indispensable, and if so, seemingly the very grasping of the eruv for the sake of the eruv already fulfills the mitzvah, so why is the bracha recited only after the fulfillment of the mitzvah? The Alter Rebbe explains in two ways]: (a) Nevertheless, it may be said [that although there is no obligation to recite the text of designation, yet] since it was in his intention to recite over it "By this it shall be permitted," etc., [therefore] the mitzvah is not completed until he recites [it]... (b) Alternatively, it may be said, since [even the Rashal and the Taz, who hold that the text is not indispensable, agree that] the choicest performance of the mitzvah is to recite [the text of designation], "By this," etc., [therefore this] is called "prior to its performance," as we find regarding the taking of a lulav... [that one recites the bracha over the lulav after grasping it, since there remains to perform the waving, even though the waving is not indispensable by law and is only for the choicest performance of the mitzvah13].
Thus one must hold the eruv in his [right] hand before and during the recitation of the bracha, and this is still considered that the bracha is "prior to its performance," since one recites afterwards the text of the eruv by which the mitzvah is completed.
In the next halacha we will discuss, God willing, whether holding [the eruv] in the hand is indispensable.
--------------
Notes:
1 OC siman 527 ↩
2 Ibid. se'ifim 11-12 ↩
3 Responsa Chaim Sha'al vol. 1 siman 29 ↩
4 Siman 527 se'ifim 3-4 ↩
5 OC siman 206:8 ↩
6 Sukkah 39a ↩
7 Menachos 35b ↩
8 OC siman 25:17 ↩
9 OC siman 167:6 ↩
10 Siman 527, Kuntres Acharon s.k. 2 ↩
11 Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah ch. 2 siman 8 ↩
12 s.k. 7 ↩
13 And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe (OC siman 263, Kuntres Acharon s.k. 3): 'For it is no worse than the remnants of a mitzvah, over which one may recite a bracha, such as the waving of the lulav, even though he already fulfilled the essence of the mitzvah without a bracha.' ↩
[9] (Halacha 659)
Holding the eruv at the time of designation (2)
Question: We learned that one must hold the eruv; what is the law regarding a person who cannot hold the eruv, such as one who is at a distance from his home?
Answer: The Magen Avraham wrote1: 'And it appears to me that one who is in the synagogue and did not place an Eruv Tavshilin, and if he goes to his home to place the eruv the time of Mincha will pass—he should pray Mincha and not place the Eruv Tavshilin, for he can transfer ownership of his flour to others.'
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe2: 'One who is in the synagogue on the eve of Yom Tov close to nightfall and has not yet prayed the Mincha tefillah, and remembers that he has not yet placed an Eruv Tavshilin, and if he goes to his home to place the Eruv Tavshilin the time of the Mincha tefillah will pass—he should pray Mincha and not place the Eruv Tavshilin, for he can transfer ownership of his flour to others, as will be explained.'
And many poskim wrote3 that from the plain meaning of the language of the Magen Avraham it appears that there is no possibility of designating [the eruv] from afar, and therefore the Magen Avraham wrote that there is no remedy except to transfer ownership of his flour.
And so wrote the Chida in Responsa Chaim Sha'al4, cited in the Ikkarei HaDaT5, and in the Zechor LeAvraham (Alcalai)6: 'Question: One of the people was sitting in the synagogue and remembered that he had not made an Eruvei Tavshilin, and there in the synagogue he recited the bracha over the mitzvah of the eruv and said, "By dish so-and-so that is in my home it shall be permitted for me to bake," etc.; and you, holy one, asked of me whether he acted properly—may the ground answer him... See, it is called an "eruv," for one begins on the eve of Yom Tov to cook for Shabbos and mixes together the dishes of Shabbos and Yom Tov, and mere speech does not suffice. And a fool does not understand the mint of the Sages: "By this eruv"—pointing with a finger, as he holds in his hand the eruv dish.'
But the Tiferes Yisrael wrote7: 'And in my humble opinion, if he has bread and a dish in his home, he may, even in the synagogue, say: "The bread and dish that I will take when I come to my home—let it be from now an Eruv Tavshilin, Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe," etc. For even though he has many loaves in his home, in a Rabbinic matter there is bereirah [retroactive clarification]. And even though the eruv is not in his hand at the time of the bracha, we are not concerned with that, for the bracha of eruv chatzeiros is at the time one gathers it, as in siman 366, and even so it is permitted to gather it by means of a minor, even though it does not enter our minds that the minor should recite the bracha to exempt the adult.'8
And in Responsa Divrei Malkiel9 he wrote regarding the words of the Chaim Sha'al: 'And in my humble opinion his words require study, for in eruvei chatzeiros too one must say "By this eruv"; and nevertheless one may make the eruv even in another place, as we hold in Eruvin folio 71 and in siman 369, that one may rely on what he has in his fellow's house for the eruv... And also, this is no worse than one who transfers ownership to others, [who] rely on this even though he certainly did not see and does not know which dish [the giver] made for the Eruv Tavshilin. And further, the poskim wrote that we hold like Rav Ashi in Beitzah 15b, that the reason is so that they will not say one bakes from Yom Tov for a weekday; and regarding this one certainly cannot say that he must specifically take it in his hand, for it is only for a mere recognizable distinction. And so it appears from the language of the Talmud in Beitzah 16a, "lentils at the bottom of a pot—one relies upon them for Eruvei Tavshilin," which implies that mere reliance suffices and one need not take it in his hand; and even that it be before him is not required... And in the Magen Avraham siman 527 s.k. 1 it is somewhat implied like the Chaim Sha'al, for he wrote there that if one is in the synagogue and cannot go to his home to make an Eruv Tavshilin, he may rely on the leader of the city10. And it is difficult, for he could make an Eruv Tavshilin in the synagogue and designate the bread and dish that are in his home; and this proves that it is forbidden to do so. But this may be rejected, for perhaps it speaks of one who does not know what to designate, or one who has no ready dish that he could leave over for Shabbos. And one cannot say that it is forbidden to recite a bracha without an act, and for this reason one should not make an Eruv Tavshilin unless he takes it in his hand, for we already wrote in siman 6 that in such a case, since by his speech or thought he performs an act, it is properly considered an act... And for this reason it appears to me in my humble opinion that there is room to be lenient to make an Eruv Tavshilin in a pressing circumstance in such a manner.'11
In practice, the Acharonim inclined to be stringent like the view of the Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe12.
Thus we have seen that when the food is not near the person, one should not make an Eruv Tavshilin from afar, but should employ the other permitted methods brought in the poskim13, (and, God willing, in another halacha we will explain them).
--------------
Notes:
1 OC siman 527 s.k. 1 ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 527:10 ↩
3 See Responsa Maharsham vol. 2 siman 36. Responsa Divrei Malkiel vol. 3 siman 8. Responsa Shevet HaLevi vol. 8 siman 123. [And see Responsa Minchas Yitzchak vol. 7 siman 36 regarding the view of the Magen Avraham; however, what he wrote regarding the view of the Alter Rebbe, that after the fact it is fine, is seemingly not compelling—[namely] his words that made the law of grasping dependent on the law of recitation—for it is possible that the Rabbinic enactment was to hold it in the hand, and in addition they enacted a text that, though not indispensable, expresses the obligation of grasping. And this is not the place to elaborate.] ↩
4 Vol. 1 siman 29 ↩
5 OC siman 24 ↩
6 Vol. 3, entry "Eruv" ↩
7 Beitzah ch. 2, Boaz os 2 ↩
8 In the Hagahos Tiferes Yaakov (printed at the end of the order [of the tractate]) there, he noted on this that the Acharonim did not write so. And see what the Maharsham wrote there at its end. ↩
9 Vol. 3 siman 8 ↩
10 This requires study, for the Magen Avraham did not write so; rather, it was the Mateh Efraim, who will be cited below in the note. ↩
11 And so wrote the Be'er Moshe (Stern), Responsa vol. 3 siman 95. And in the Shevet HaLevi there he wrote that one who relies upon them is not to be dismissed. ↩
12 See Elef HaMagen 625 s.k. 51: 'However, even though it is implied from the poskim and Acharonim that it is ineffective, nevertheless it is possible that one may rely upon this in a pressing circumstance and recite the aforementioned text without a bracha (for the bracha is not indispensable, and he should also rely on the leader of the city).' And see also the Ketzeh HaMateh os 53, that so it is implied from the early and later poskim, except that he remained in doubt whether one may rely on the Tiferes Yisrael in a pressing circumstance. ↩
13 The Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe wrote that one should transfer ownership of his flour, as above; and the Mateh Efraim wrote (siman 625:37): 'And it appears that in this too he may rely on the leader of the city. And if it is possible for him to ask a neighbor near the synagogue to transfer ownership to him of bread and a dish and to make an Eruv Tavshilin, he should endeavor after this, since it is possible for him to fulfill both. And one who is traveling on the road and sees that he will not be at his home by nightfall, and it is possible that in the nearby village or in a house adjacent to the city, and night has not yet fallen, he should purchase there bread and a dish fit to make an eruv with, or they should purchase for him there, and make an Eruvei Tavshilin—he should be zealous and remember to do so.' And in the Elef LaMateh (os 55) he wrote that it is possible that according to the Magen Avraham one may not rely on the leader of the city, and this is his language: 'See the Magen Avraham, who wrote that he should pray Mincha, for he can transfer ownership, etc.—which implies that relying on the leader of the city is ineffective in this case, since it is still in his power to place [the eruv], except that he actively pushes it off on account of the obligation of Mincha; and in this we consider that which he forgot until the time of Mincha arrived as one who forgets on account of laziness, which is like one who is negligent, as explained there. But this is not compelling, for it may be said that even forgetting in such a manner is considered as one under duress, and the Magen Avraham stated his matter in a place where there is no leader of the city—[then] he should pray Mincha, since he can transfer ownership; and in truth, in my humble opinion, even in a place where there are no others to whom he can transfer ownership, by Torah law he should push off the Mincha tefillah, which is a frequent obligation of the hour—and this requires study.' ↩
[10] (Halacha 660)
The Alter Rebbe wrote1 that after a person recites the bracha over the Eruv Tavshilin: 'And afterwards he says, "By this eruv it shall be permitted for us to bake, and to cook, and to insulate, and to kindle a light, and to do all our needs, from Yom Tov to Shabbos."'
Question: Must one understand the text, or does it suffice that one recites it in the Holy Tongue, even without understanding?
Answer: In the Sefer Minhagei Maharil2 it is written: 'Maharai Segal said... and if he does not know the Holy Tongue, he may say it in the German language.'
And the Rama wrote in the Darkei Moshe3: 'The Maharil wrote that if one does not know to recite the eruv in the Holy Tongue, he shall recite it in the vernacular.' And in the gloss on the Shulchan Aruch4 he wrote: 'And one who does not know the Holy Tongue5 may recite it in a vernacular tongue that he understands.'
And in the Biur HaGra he wrote6: 'Both according to the reason of Rava, "so that he select," etc., and according to the reason of Rav Ashi, "so that they will say," one must understand it and thereby fulfill [the obligation].'
That is, the Gra writes that according to both reasons for which they enacted the eruv (the honor of Yom Tov or the honor of Shabbos) one must recite it in a manner that he understands.
However, in the language of the Rama there is room to discuss, as the Alter Rebbe wrote in the Kuntres Acharon7, regarding one who does not understand the Holy Tongue, that there is a doubt whether he is obligated to translate or is merely permitted to translate into a tongue that he understands—that is, that it is only for the choicest performance of the mitzvah to translate; and this is his language: '"does not understand," etc. Behold, in this law there is room for doubt whether it is optional or obligatory, for in the Darkei Moshe he copied in the name of the Maharil "he shall recite it" in [such] a tongue, etc., which somewhat implies that it is obligatory; and it is certainly so according to what the Rama wrote in the name of the Ohr Zarua, with which the Magen Avraham agreed, that if one did not mention the labors explicitly, even though he said "to do all our needs," he has said nothing, for one must stipulate that by this eruv all the labors shall be permitted to him. If so, this one who does not understand what he utters—it is obvious that this is nothing, for even though he knows that this is an Eruv Tavshilin, nevertheless he does not know the matter of the labors that he stipulates over, and this is not a valid condition, since his mouth and heart are not equal. But according to what the Taz and the Rashal wrote, that this recitation is not indispensable at all, just as the bracha is not indispensable, then it may be said that just as with a bracha a person fulfills his obligation even though he does not understand the meaning of the words, as explained in the Rosh at the end of the first chapter of Berachos in the name of the Raavad, the same applies to this recitation8, since he knows that he is making an Eruv Tavshilin so that it be permitted for him to do the needs of Shabbos on Yom Tov. And this requires study in the Maharil9.'
That is, the Alter Rebbe is in doubt whether it is obligatory to recite it in a tongue that one understands, or whether this is not obligatory but only optional; and the cause of the doubt is that in the source of the law, which is the Maharil, it is stated "he may recite" in the German tongue, but the Rama in the Darkei Moshe wrote "he shall recite" in the vernacular, and from his language one can understand that this is a directive that one must do so, and not merely an ability. And the Alter Rebbe explains that the side to say that one is obligated to translate is based on the view of the Ohr Zarua [and so the Rama ruled in the gloss se'if 20], who wrote that a person who made an eruv and did not mention all the labors that he wishes to do by means of the eruv—only those labors that he mentioned will be permitted to him; if so, according to this, a person who recited the text without understanding is like one who did not explicitly mention the labors, and the eruv will not be effective for him. This is not the case according to the view of the Maharshal and the Taz, who held that the text is not indispensable, in which case, even though he does not understand exactly what he said, since he knows that this is an eruv, it is effective.
And in practice the Alter Rebbe wrote10: 'And if he does not understand the Aramaic tongue, he shall recite it in a tongue that he understands.'
And seemingly the Alter Rebbe's ruling is that it is obligatory to translate, and therefore he copied the language of the Rama in the Darkei Moshe, and not his language in the Shulchan Aruch that "he may translate." And this accords with his view (ibid. se'if 7) that ideally one must be stringent and be concerned for the view of the Ohr Zarua11.
And the Mishnah Berurah wrote12 on the words of the Rama, "may," etc.—meaning, he must recite. And in the Shaar HaTziyun13 he explained: 'So it is proven from the Biur HaGra, and it is obvious, and especially according to the Rama in se'if 20, that the recitation is indispensable. And see the Kuntres Acharon of the Alter Rebbe.'
And plainly his intention is that, as stated, the Alter Rebbe explained that the laws are interdependent, and if so, the Rama, who ruled that the recitation is indispensable, must accordingly hold that, in his view, understanding the text is indispensable; and one must therefore say that even the Rama, who wrote "may," did not intend to say that it is merely optional, but rather that since he is able to translate, he must therefore do so.
Thus, in practice, ideally one must recite the text of the eruv in a language that he understands.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 527:5 ↩
2 Hilchos Eruvei Tavshilin [os 9] ↩
3 OC siman 527 os 12 ↩
4 OC siman 527:12 ↩
5 And to note that the Rama wrote *the Holy Tongue*, and the Alter Rebbe wrote *the Aramaic tongue*; and see the Chok Yaakov OC siman 434 s.k. 11 in the name of the Eliyah Zuta, that the Rama calls the language of the Talmud, relative to the other tongues, the Holy Tongue. ↩
6 Os 24 ↩
7 s.k. 1 ↩
8 And see the Nimukei Yom Tov there os 5, who discusses whether, according to the view of the Taz, one may ideally recite it in a manner that he does not understand, or whether it is effective only after the fact. ↩
9 See the Nimukei Yom Tov on the Kuntres Acharon os 6, that from the words of the Maharil himself it is explained that this is optional, (and an error crept into the Shulchan Aruch HaMevuar there os 17). ↩
10 Siman 527:5 ↩
11 And not like what is written in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe HaMevuar (Alashvili) in the Biurim os 46, that on account of the doubt the Alter Rebbe employed the language "he shall recite," which can be understood both in the sense of obligation and in the sense of option. ↩
12 s.k. 40 ↩
13 s.k. 55 ↩
From the "Shoneh Halacha" project - A daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: "Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim"
Join the WhatsApp group