Eruv Tavshilin
[1] (Halacha 282)
This year, because Chag HaShavuos, which is coming upon us for good, falls on Friday, adjacent to Shabbos, it will be necessary [also for those in Eretz Yisroel] 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 Yom Tov day for the next, and afterward 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 Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'It was stated: One who bakes on Yom Tov for a weekday — Rav Chisda said: he receives lashes [since it is forbidden to cook not for the needs of the Yom Tov]; Rabbah said: he does not receive lashes [since there is the law of "ho'il," as we will see below].
Rav Chisda said he receives lashes: we do not say "since guests might happen to come to him, it is fit for him." Rabbah said he does not receive lashes: we do say "ho'il." [Explanation of the concept "ho'il": a dish that was cooked for tomorrow — since in fact this dish is fit for that very day, for if guests who had not yet eaten that day were to happen to come to him, they would eat from this dish — therefore Rabbah holds that it is not forbidden by Torah law, and he does not receive lashes].
Rabbah said to Rav Chisda: According to you, who says that we do not say "ho'il" [and therefore there is a Torah prohibition in this], how may one bake on Yom Tov for Shabbos? He said to him: Because of the eruvei tavshilin. And because of the eruvei tavshilin we permit a Torah prohibition?! He said to him: By Torah law, the needs of Shabbos may be done on Yom Tov, and it is the Rabbis who decreed regarding it, a decree lest people say that one may bake on Yom Tov even for a weekday. And since the Rabbis required an eruvei tavshilin, there is a distinguishing sign'.
And Tosafos wrote there, regarding the position of Rabbah: 'And if you will say: for it is stated in HaMatznia2: One who sweeps, or removes honeycombs .. if he did so deliberately on Yom Tov, he receives forty lashes — these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer .. Why does he receive lashes according to Rabbi Eliezer? Let us say "since guests might happen to come to him" .. Alternatively, it refers to one who removes them close to sunset, when even if guests were to 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," there is nevertheless a Rabbinic prohibition without an eruv tavshilin: 'However, even though Rabbah disagrees with regard to lashes, he concedes that l'chatchilah 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 l'chatchilah, such as from Yom Tov for Shabbos; but the Rabbis required an eruvei tavshilin, in accordance with his reasoning in Maseches Yom Tov, where he said: so that he will set aside a fine portion for Shabbos and a fine portion for Yom Tov'.
If so, 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 the 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.
We have further learned that only when the prohibition is Rabbinic is there a possibility, by means of an eruv tavshilin, to permit the preparation from Yom Tov for Shabbos.
And as for the halacha5, the Alter Rebbe wrote6: 'Even though it is forbidden to perform even any of the melachos of ochel nefesh for the needs of motzaei Yom Tov, nevertheless, if Yom Tov falls on Erev Shabbos, by strict law it would have been permitted to perform them on Yom Tov for the needs of the Shabbos that follows it. For one who cooks (or performs other melachos) on Yom Tov for the needs of a weekday does not receive 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 in the day to eat from it) .. Rather, the Sages forbade exerting oneself on Yom Tov for the needs of a weekday, since it is possible to exert oneself on the weekday itself. But for a Shabbos that follows Yom Tov, since it is impossible to exert oneself on Shabbos itself, it would have been proper to permit exerting oneself on Yom Tov in honor of Shabbos, since it is a pressing circumstance with no other way; and by Torah law there is no prohibition here at all when he cooks while it is still full day, when there is time in the day such that if guests who had not yet eaten that day were to happen to come to him, they would eat from this dish that he is cooking for the needs of Shabbos .. Nevertheless, the Sages enacted that one may not cook and perform all other melachos of ochel nefesh on Yom Tov for the needs of the Shabbos that follows it, even while it is still full day, unless he set aside an eruv tavshilin — that is, that he cook one dish on Erev Yom Tov, and this dish should be kept safe by him so that he does not lose it and does not eat it until after he has prepared and done all the needs of Shabbos'.
Further on he wrote7: 'An eruv tavshilin is effective only to permit doing all the needs of Shabbos on Yom Tov while it is still full day — that is, when there is time in the day such that if guests who had not eaten that day were to happen to come to him, they would eat and benefit that very day, before bein hashmashos, from the melachah he performed on Yom Tov. But if there is no time in the day to benefit from his melachah, there is a Torah prohibition in performing this melachah .. and the eruv tavshilin that the Sages enacted is of no effect whatsoever to permit a Torah prohibition. And because not everyone is well-versed in this halacha, therefore the custom is, when Yom Tov falls on Erev Shabbos, to daven the Maariv of Shabbos early, while it is still day, so that everyone will be diligent to hurry 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 position of the Rambam, that according to all opinions there is no Torah prohibition in preparing the needs of Shabbos on Yom Tov; these are his words: 'And in truth, the view of the Rambam .. is that the one who holds of "ho'il" also holds so [that by Torah law the needs of Shabbos may be done on Yom Tov, and it is the Rabbis who decreed regarding it], for on this they do not disagree. And as for Tosafos, we must say that they hold that even though it is not explicit in the Gemara that they disagree on this, nevertheless, according to Rabbah there is no difference between from Yom Tov for Shabbos and from Yom Tov for a weekday'. And see the Biur Halacha, s.v. "V'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, se'if 6: 'Nevertheless, if he was delayed due to some circumstance beyond his control, he may continue to cook on Yom Tov until close to sunset; and the reason for this is that we rely on the reasoning of those who say that by Torah law the needs of Shabbos may be done on the Yom Tov preceding it, and only the Sages forbade it, and by means of an eruv they permitted it entirely ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 1 ↩
7 There, se'if 8 ↩
[2] (Halacha 282)
Question: What is the reason for this enactment of eruv tavshilin?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Beitzah1 says: 'When Yom Tov falls on Erev Shabbos .. one prepares a dish on Erev Yom Tov and relies on it for Shabbos'. And in the Gemara there: 'From where are these words derived? Shmuel said: For the verse says, "זכור את יום השבת לקדשו" ("Remember the Shabbos day to keep it holy") — remember it on account of something that comes to make you forget it. What is the reason? Rava said: So that he will set aside a fine portion for Shabbos and a fine portion for Yom Tov. Rav Ashi said: So that people will say: One may not bake from Yom Tov for Shabbos — all the more so from Yom Tov for a weekday... And a Tanna derives it from here: "את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו" ("That which you will bake, bake; and that which you will cook, cook") — from here Rabbi Elazar said: One may bake only upon what is already baked, and one may cook only upon what is already cooked. From here the Sages found support for eruvei tavshilin from the Torah'.
The explanation of the reasons of Rava and Rav Ashi is set out in the words of the Alter Rebbe2: 'And for two reasons3 the Sages enacted this matter. First, 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 began to cook one dish on Erev Yom Tov — so that what he cooks on Yom Tov is merely like continuing to complete what he began on Erev Yom Tov — all the more so is it forbidden to cook on Yom Tov for the needs of a weekday, even if he began to cook on Erev Yom Tov. Second, in order to increase the honor of Shabbos: for by requiring him to cook one dish on Erev Yom Tov for the sake of preparing the needs of the seudos of the Shabbos that follows, he is reminded of all the needs of Shabbos on Erev Yom Tov, and he sets aside a fine portion for Shabbos and a fine portion for Yom Tov, and does not use up 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: according to Rava, one must make the eruv specifically on Erev Yom Tov, so that he will set aside a fine portion for Shabbos; and according to Rav Ashi, one may make the eruv even before Erev Yom Tov'.
And the Mechaber wrote6: 'If he set aside the eruv with the intention of relying on it for as long as it lasts, even for another Yom Tov — l'chatchilah he should not rely on it for another Yom Tov, but b'dieved he may rely on it.
And the Taz wrote7: 'And the Rosh wrote that there is a practical difference between these reasons: according to Rava, one must make the eruv specifically on Erev Yom Tov, so that he will set aside a fine portion for Shabbos, and according to Rav Ashi, one may make the eruv even before Erev Yom Tov .. And since it is not clear to us in accordance with whom the halacha is, the Beis Yosef ruled l'chatchilah to forbid and b'dieved to permit:
These are the words of the Alter Rebbe there: 'And according to the first reason, one need not set aside the eruv on Erev Yom Tov itself; rather, it is permitted to set aside an eruv tavshilin even several weeks before Yom Tov and to stipulate regarding it that by means of this eruv it will be permitted for him to cook and bake on the coming Yom Tov for the Shabbos that follows it — provided only that the eruv remains in existence and fit to eat, and has not spoiled from the time it was set aside until Yom Tov, for example, if he made the eruv not with a cooked dish but with smoked meat, which lasts many days. Likewise, it is permitted to set aside one eruv for many Yamim Tovim that will fall on Erev Shabbos, if he stipulates regarding it explicitly: "By means of this eruv it will be permitted for me to cook and bake on all the Yamim Tovim of this year that will fall on Erev Shabbos, for the needs of the Shabbos that follows" — provided only that the eruv remains in existence and fit to eat on each and every Yom Tov. But according to the second reason that we explained, one must set aside the eruv tavshilin on Erev Yom Tov itself, for if he set it aside many days before Yom Tov, then when Erev Yom Tov arrives he still will not be reminded of the needs of Shabbos and will not set aside a fine portion in its honor .. Therefore, in practice, l'chatchilah one should make the eruv only on Erev Yom Tov itself, and for this Yom Tov alone, as was explained according to the second reason. But b'dieved, if he already made the eruv many days before Yom Tov, and on Erev Yom Tov itself he forgot, or deliberately did not make an eruv, he is permitted to rely on his eruv and to begin cooking from Yom Tov for Shabbos..'.
The Rebbe8 urged that the eruv be made in the manner of "zrizin makdimin", and mentioned the possibility of making it even on the night of Erev Yom Tov9. However, the rabbonim asked10 whether this is the halacha in practice, for seemingly from the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, siman 527, the implication is Erev Yom Tov itself11.
In his response, the Rebbe crossed out the word "this is," and wrote: 'It is not the halacha in practice to be lenient(?), although in my humble opinion, if one is setting out on a journey and the like, the entire day is valid, and even before that — and follow the reason: if he makes it on the "eve" of Yom Tov'.
If so, l'chatchilah one should make the eruv tavshilin on Erev Yom Tov; but when there is a reason, such as one who is setting out on a journey and the like, he may make it even on the night of Erev Yom Tov.
Notes:
1 15b ↩
2 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 2 ↩
3 And see the Rebbe's note in Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 185, note 19, and vol. 17, p. 458, note 6, that from the style of the Alter Rebbe's wording, 'And for two reasons the Sages enacted this matter,' it seemingly implies that this is not a dispute, but rather two reasons — except that the reason relating to 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 There, ch. 2, siman 1 ↩
5 But see the Kol Bo, siman 59, cited in the Beis Yosef ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 14 ↩
7 Se'if katan 13 ↩
8 Sichah of the night of Erev Rosh Hashanah 5748 – Toras Menachem 5747, vol. 4, p. 426 ↩
9 Shu"t Shevet HaLevi vol. 9, siman 129, os 4. And Kovetz MiBeis Levi 7 (5755), p. 37, din 9 and note 8. Shu"t Maamar Mordechai (by Harav M. Eliyahu) vol. 3, Orach Chaim, siman 18: 'And it appears simple that one may make the eruv from the night of Erev Yom Tov, for the day always begins from the night'. And see also Shu"t Siach Yitzchak (R' Y. Weiss), siman 242 ↩
10 Kovetz Haoros U'Biurim, issue 1073, p. 128 ↩
11 Note what Harav Ch. M. A. Hodakov wrote (Teshurah Kramer 5774), from motzaei Shabbos Teshuvah 5731: that on the night before Erev Rosh Hashanah he asked the Rebbe whether it is possible to make eruv tavshilin early in the morning, and the Rebbe answered that presumably it is done closer (to evening), for otherwise they could eat it in the meantime; end quote ↩
[3] (Halacha 283)
The study of this halacha is dedicated in the merit of the soldier in Tzivos Hashem, Zelda Rochel bas Nechama Sarah, for her birthday
Question: What is needed for an eruv tavshilin?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Beitzah1 says: 'And one prepares a dish on Erev Yom Tov and relies on 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 will bake, bake; and that which you will cook, cook") — from here Rabbi Elazar said: One may bake only upon what is already baked, and one may cook only upon what is already cooked'.
However, in the Yerushalmi2 the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, is also cited: 'It is written [Shemos 16:23]: "את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו". Rabbi Eliezer says: One bakes upon what is baked and cooks upon what is cooked. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One bakes and cooks upon what is cooked. What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? "את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו". What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua? "את אשר תאפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו" ("That which you will bake and that which you will cook, cook")'.
Further on in the Gemara in the Bavli3 it is stated: 'Abaye said: They taught this only regarding a cooked dish, but not bread'.
If so, we have three sources that discuss whether bread is also required: a. In the Bavli, [only] the position of Rabbi Eliezer is cited, that a cooked dish is required to permit cooking and a baked item to permit baking. b. However, in the Yerushalmi the position of Rabbi Yehoshua is also cited, who disagrees with him and holds that a cooked dish permits everything. c. In addition, in the Bavli the words of Abaye are cited, who says that only a cooked dish is required, and not bread. The Rishonim disagreed as to how to relate to all these sources, what is primary for the halacha, and what the minhag is, as follows:
The Behag wrote4: 'And how is it done? One takes a loaf of bread on Erev Yom Tov and places within it meat, or an egg, or fish, as they are cooked'.
And in the Siddur Rashi5 it is written: 'For one may not bake and cook from Yom Tov for Shabbos unless he made an eruv with bread and a cooked dish. And so he does: 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 on the basis of an eruv of one cooked dish, for we hold like Rabbi Eliezer, who said: One may bake only upon what is already baked, and one may cook only upon what is already cooked .. And as for what Abaye said, "They taught this only regarding one cooked dish, but not bread" — that applies specifically where one does not wish to bake; but if he wished to bake, he would need bread'.
However, most Rishonim disagreed with them and held in accordance with the plain meaning of Abaye's words, that one makes the eruv specifically with a cooked dish, as the Rif wrote7: As for what you asked regarding eruvei tavshilin .. and one takes a little roasted and cooked meat'.
And so wrote the Rambam8: 'And this eruv is not made with bread, nor with groats and the like, but only with a cooked dish that is a relish, such as meat, fish, eggs and the like'.
And the Ran9 wrote: 'And in the Tosefta too it is explicitly proven that one cooked dish suffices for everything, for we learn there: One prepares a dish on Erev Yom Tov and bakes and cooks upon it for Shabbos'.
However, many Rishonim wrote that even though the halacha is not like Rabbeinu Tam, nevertheless in practice the custom is in accordance with his position, to make the eruv with bread and a cooked dish together. And so wrote Tosafos there: 'And this is not acceptable to Rabbeinu Yitzchak: first, because from all these it is implied that only one cooked dish is needed for everything, whether to bake or to cook; and as for the Gemara above citing Rabbi Eliezer, it is not because the halacha is like him, but rather it cites it as a mere asmachta for eruvei tavshilin. On the contrary, we hold like Rabbi Yehoshua against Rabbi Eliezer, because Rabbi Eliezer is a Shamuti, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with him in the Yerushalmi and says: One bakes and cooks upon what is cooked. Nevertheless, the Ri said: My heart does not permit me to transgress the words of my uncle [= Rabbeinu Tam], and two dishes are required, [that is,] bread and a cooked dish; and so is the practice of the people'.
And so wrote the Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam there: 'And know that one cooked dish without bread suffices, and so it appears from the Halachos, and so wrote some of the Geonim z"l, and this is the view of the Ramban and the Rashba, in accordance with the words of our Rabbeinu; but the custom is to be stringent and to require bread and a cooked dish, in order to remove all doubt'.
And in the Hagahos Maimoniyos there: The Ri wrote that he was accustomed to make the eruv with bread and a cooked dish, in order to uphold the minhag and to satisfy all our Rabbis, even though the words of the Rivam were told to him, who ruled that one cooked dish suffices, as is explained in Tosafos; and so wrote Rashi, that his teacher was accustomed to use a cooked dish and bread in such a case'.
And as for the halacha, the Mechaber wrote10: 'This eruv is made with bread and a cooked dish; and if one made it only with a cooked dish alone, it is permitted'. And the Taz explained11: 'And most poskim hold like Rabbi Yehoshua; only Rabbeinu Tam and a few opinions hold like Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore it is valid, at least b'dieved, in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua'.
These are the words of the Alter Rebbe12: 'How is the mitzvah of setting aside the eruv tavshilin performed? One takes in his hand a piece of bread containing a k'beitzah, and a k'zayis of cooked meat or some other cooked item containing a k'zayis, so that through this bread it will be permitted for him to bake from Yom Tov for Shabbos, and through this cooked dish it will be permitted for him to cook from Yom Tov for Shabbos. And if he made the eruv only with a cooked dish alone and did not remember until after the night of Yom Tov had begun — even if it is the first day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora, which fell on Thursday, when he could make the eruv conditionally, as will be explained — nevertheless he need not go back and make the eruv again, since he already made the eruv with a cooked dish, which is the essence of the eruv'.
If so, according to the halacha the essence of the eruv is the cooked dish; nevertheless, l'chatchilah one should also take bread.
Tomorrow we will discuss the case of one who does not plan to cook or bake — whether he nevertheless needs to 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 Shu"t, siman 312 ↩
8 Hilchos Yom Tov, ch. 6, halacha 3 ↩
9 Beitzah, daf 10a of the pages of the Rif ↩
10 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 2 ↩
11 Se'if katan 4 ↩
12 Siman 527, se'if 3 ↩
[4] (Halacha 284)
Question: We learned in the previous halacha that bread is also placed in the eruv tavshilin, out of concern for the position of Rabbeinu Tam that bread specifically is 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 position of Rabbeinu Tam: 'As for what Abaye said, "They taught this only regarding one cooked dish, but not bread" — that applies specifically where one does not wish to bake'. If so, even according to Rabbeinu Tam, in such a situation there is no need for bread, and this is in essence the words of Abaye.
And so wrote the Olas Shabbos2: 'And it appears that this applies specifically when he wishes to bake bread on Yom Tov; but when he wishes only to cook and not to bake, Rabbeinu Tam too holds that a cooked dish alone suffices. So I found there in Tosafos'. And see also the Mishnah Berurah3.
In practice, many have the custom always to make it with bread as well, and so wrote several of the poskim4.
Question: What is the law in a case where he made the eruv with bread alone?
Answer: In a case where he made the eruv with bread alone, the Rishonim disagreed. The Shibbolei HaLeket5 wrote: 'And if he made the eruv with bread, it covers only bread alone and not a cooked dish .. '. That is to say, he may bake by means of this eruv.
However, the Ohr Zarua6 wrote: 'And if he made it with 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 so wrote Rabbeinu Menachem Recanati7: 'One who makes eruvei tavshilin, l'chatchilah, needs bread and a cooked dish or a roasted item. If he made a cooked dish alone or a roasted item alone, he may rely on 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 for the halacha, the Elya Rabbah wrote8: 'But one may not rely on bread alone, 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 the requirement with bread alone; and even though we hold l'chatchilah in accordance with the reasoning of Rabbeinu Tam that one bakes upon what is baked, that is specifically as a stringency, but not as a leniency. And so it is explained explicitly in the Hagahos Asheri, ch. 2 [siman 5].'
These are the words of the Alter Rebbe10: 'But if he made the eruv with bread alone, he must go back and make the eruv again; 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 Se'if katan 2 ↩
3 Se'if katan 6 ↩
4 See Shu"t Ohr L'Tzion vol. 3, ch. 22, note 1: 'Now, in our times, when it is not common 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, se'if katan 6. Nevertheless, the custom is to place bread as well for the eruv tavshilin'. And so wrote Harav Wosner in Kovetz MiBeis Levi 7, 5755, p. 35, os 2. And in explanation of the matter, it can be said, based on the words of Rava, that the eruv is so that he will set aside a fine portion for Shabbos, and therefore bread is joined to the cooked dish, which is the essence of the seudah. And see at length what Harav A. D. Auerbach wrote in Sefer HaZikaron Mevakshei Torah, p. 82, and note the wording of the Behag: 'And how is it done? One takes a loaf of bread on Erev Yom Tov and places within it meat, or an egg, or fish, as they are cooked'. And Rashi, cited yesterday: 'He takes bread and places upon it meat, or an egg, or fish, when they are cooked' — that the cooked dish brought must be not merely a dish fit to accompany the bread, but that he actually combines them and places the cooked dish within the bread — 'accompanied' ↩
5 Seder Atzeres, siman 246 ↩
6 Vol. 2, Hilchos Yom Tov, siman 343, cited in the Hagahos Asheri, Beitzah, ch. 2, siman 5 ↩
7 Piskei Halachos, siman 146 ↩
8 Se'if katan 4 ↩
9 Se'if katan 4 ↩
10 Siman 527, se'if 3 ↩
[5] (Halacha 285)
Question: If a person prepared all the Shabbos foods in advance on Erev Yom Tov, must he make an eruv tavshilin for the sake of lighting the Shabbos candles?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Beitzah1 says: 'Come and hear: One who did not set aside eruvei tavshilin may not bake, nor cook, nor insulate food, neither for himself nor for others'. And from the fact that the Gemara does not state that he may not light a candle, some learned that lighting the candle is not connected to the eruv tavshilin.
However, further on the Gemara2 says: 'For Rav Huna said: For one who did not set aside eruvei tavshilin, one bakes one loaf of bread for him, cooks one pot for him, and lights the candle for him'. From this it is implied that without the eruv he cannot light the candle.
And the Ohr Zarua wrote3: 'But Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Rabbi Asher zt"l was in doubt whether one needs to say "and to light a lamp", for so it is implied above that one need not say it, as it is taught: One who did not set aside eruvei tavshilin may not bake, nor cook, nor insulate food — but "he may not light the candle" is not taught .. And also what Rav Huna said, "and lights the candle for him," it does not appear that he mentioned it because of the eruv, for he did not say "and lights one candle for him," as he said "one loaf of bread and one pot"; rather, Rav Huna mentioned all the things that one cannot do without, because he needed to inform him of the matters that are a person's bare necessities ..'
And indeed, in practice the Rishonim disagreed regarding the text of the eruv tavshilin — whether lighting the candle is also mentioned in it or not. There are Rishonim who did not mention lighting the candle, but only baking and cooking; and this is the position of the Rif4 and the Rambam5, who did not mention lighting the candle in the text of the eruv. And the Beis Yosef wrote6: 'From the words of the Rambam that I wrote regarding the text of the wording of the eruv (that they did not mention in the text of the words of the eruv "ul'adlukei shraga"7), it appears that lighting the candle is not dependent on the eruv'8.
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 light a lamp'. And so wrote Tosafos10, the Rashba11, and the Ran12. And these are the words of the Rosh13: 'From the fact that he said "and lights the candle for him," [we learn from this that] one who did not make an eruv is forbidden even to light .. Therefore the custom is, when setting aside the eruv, to say: to bake, and to cook, and to light, and to insulate. And even though I explained above that they enacted it only for the essence of a seudah, that means that one need make the eruv only from bread and a cooked dish, which are the essence of a seudah; but one must mention every matter that is forbidden to do without an eruv'.
If so, the Rishonim disagreed as to whether lighting the candle is mentioned in the text of the eruv; and some say that according to those who say it need not be mentioned, this is because an eruv tavshilin is not needed for the purpose of lighting the candle.
On this basis the Mechaber wrote14: 'One who did not make an eruv is permitted to light the Shabbos candle; and some forbid it'. That is to say, the primary view is in accordance with the position of the Rambam; nevertheless, as a stringency he was stringent in accordance with those who forbid, and therefore he wrote to say in the text15: 'Through this it shall be permitted for us to bake, and to cook, and to insulate, and to light a lamp ..'. And so he wrote16: 'And if there are no others there who made an eruv, some say that it is permitted to bake, sparingly, one loaf of bread, to cook one pot, and to light one candle'.
However, regarding the position of the Alter Rebbe, it appears that he accepted as primary the position of the Rosh, that one is obligated to make an eruv for lighting the candle, and he did not mention the position of the Rambam (according to the Beis Yosef's reading). These are his words17: 'And afterward he should say: Through this it shall be permitted for us to bake, and to cook, and to insulate, and to light a lamp ..'. And further on he wrote18: 'And they required specifying only baking and cooking, because they are the principal of all the melachos of food preparation; and insulating food and lighting the candle, because had he not set aside an eruv tavshilin, it would have been more fitting to forbid insulating food and lighting the candle from Yom Tov for Shabbos than all the other melachos, since at the time they are performed it is evident that he is doing them not for the needs of Yom Tov — for it is not people's way to insulate hot food for that same day, but only for the needs of the next day; and likewise it is not people's way to light a candle while it is still day, except on Erev Shabbos for the needs of Shabbos night. Therefore, when he sets aside an eruv tavshilin, he must specify these melachos more than all the other melachos, which are included in "to do all our needs"'. And he further wrote19: 'One who did not make an eruv … has no remedy except that the flour that he needs to bake, the dishes that he needs to cook, and the candles that he needs to light .. And if there is no other person there who made an eruv who could transfer ownership of his flour, his dishes and his candles to him — or even if there is a person who made an eruv but he does not wish to transfer ownership to him — the Sages permitted him to prepare all the needs of Shabbos sparingly, enough for his bare necessities, for the sake of the honor of Shabbos; that is, he may bake one loaf of bread for himself, cook one pot for himself, and light one candle for himself.
If so, from the words of the Alter Rebbe it appears that also for lighting the candle there is an absolute obligation to make an eruv.
In practice, even a person who cooked all the Shabbos foods in advance and did not need to cook on Yom Tov for the needs of Shabbos — nevertheless, since he must light a candle in honor of Shabbos20, he should make an eruv tavshilin with a bracha21.
Notes:
1 17a ↩
2 Daf 21b ↩
3 Hilchos Yom Tov, siman 347 ↩
4 Beitzah 9b ↩
5 Hilchos Yom Tov, ch. 6, halacha 8 ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 527 ↩
7 Beis Yosef, end of the siman ↩
8 However, the Magen Avraham, se'if katan 18, wrote: 'This is a novel ruling the Beis Yosef derived on his own, from the fact that the Rif and the Rambam did not mention "ul'adlukei shraga" in the text of the eruv, concluding that even without an eruv it is permitted to light. But it seems to me that they hold that one need mention only the essence of the seudah, and all other matters are drawn after them' ↩
9 The Maggid Mishneh on the Rambam there; and see also the Ohr Zarua cited above ↩
10 Beitzah, daf 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'midamrinan" ↩
13 Ch. 2, siman 16 ↩
14 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 19 ↩
15 Se'if 12 ↩
16 Se'if 20 ↩
17 Se'if 5 ↩
18 Se'if 7 ↩
19 Se'ifim 28–29 ↩
20 It should be noted that some have written (see Chut HaShani, 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 light the candle, he may make an eruv with a bracha. (And this is all the more understandable, since we hold that we say "ho'il" — that guests may come to him.) However, many of the Acharonim disagreed with this (see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak vol. 7, siman 36; Shu"t Minchas Shlomo, Tinyana (2–3), siman 58. And see the next note ↩
21 And so ruled HaGaon Harav M. S. Ashkenazi a"h, and, may he be distinguished for a good, long life, Harav Y. Farkash. (However, see the Maamar Mordechai, se'if katan 18, on the words of the Mechaber, who holds that the eruv for the sake of the candle is only a stringency, where he wrote that seemingly one should not recite the bracha, but he concludes: however, in practice this requires further study. And the Kaf HaChaim wrote in se'if katan 113: 'Therefore one who comes to make the eruv need not recite the bracha, because of the principle of safek brochos l'hakel'. And so wrote Shu"t Ohr L'Tzion vol. 3, ch. 22, os 6; and see also Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak vol. 9, siman 54) ↩
[6] (Halacha 286)
The study of this halacha is dedicated in the merit of Sheina bas Nechama Sarah, for her birthday
Question: Which cooked dish is effective for an eruv tavshilin?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Beitzah1 says: 'We require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany bread. And porridge too does not accompany bread, 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 on them for the sake of eruvei tavshilin. And this applies only where they contain a k'zayis. Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Yehudah said: Fat that is on a knife — one scrapes it off and relies on it for the sake of eruvei tavshilin. And this applies only where it contains a k'zayis'.
And Rashi wrote: "that accompanies" — 'We require a relish, for then the matter is evident that it is made for Shabbos. "And bread does not accompany" — therefore the matter is not evident, for every day there is bread'2.
And the Shibbolei HaLeket3 wrote somewhat differently: 'Abaye said: They taught this only regarding a cooked dish, but not bread. What is the reason? We require something that accompanies bread, and bread does not accompany bread. Explanation: the matter is not evident, since people's way is to bake bread for several days, [which] is not so with a relish'.
And so wrote the Mechaber4: 'This cooked dish must be something fit to accompany bread, to exclude porridge'.
And further on5 he wrote: 'On Erev Yom Tov one may rely even on lentils at the bottom of a pot, and likewise on fat that stuck to a knife and he scraped it off, provided that it contains a k'zayis'. And on this the Taz wrote6: 'In any case, for the sake of hiddur mitzvah it is proper to take a complete cooked dish according to all opinions.'
As an example of things that are not made to accompany bread, the Mishnah Berurah wrote7: 'And it appears that potatoes that one peeled and cooked dry are among the things that are usually eaten by themselves in order to be satiated, and not to accompany bread, and one may not make an eruv with them; and likewise legumes cooked dry, which are called arbes, or beans, which are called bub'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe8: 'One may make an eruv tavshilin only with a cooked dish that is fit to accompany bread, such as meat, fish, eggs and the like'.
And further on he wrote9: '.. If he has another cooked dish, l'chatchilah he should not make the eruv with lentils that remained at the bottom of a pot, nor with fat that he scraped off a knife, because of disrespect to the mitzvah; but if he made the eruv with it, he need not go back and make the eruv again'.
If so, we have seen that the cooked dish in an eruv tavshilin must be a dish with which one accompanies bread, and not something that one usually eats by itself — for then it is not effective even b'dieved. But something that is fit to accompany bread, only it is not respectable — l'chatchilah he should not take it, but b'dieved he has fulfilled the requirement.
Question: Why do many take an egg for the eruv tavshilin?
Answer: This minhag is already mentioned in the Behag10, and regarding the reason for it the Ben Ish Chai wrote11: 'And it is good to make the cooked dish from hard-boiled eggs, for these keep in these places, which are hot, whereas meat will not keep in the hot season 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; therefore it is good to make it from boiled eggs, for these will keep and will not spoil'. And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan12.
And the poskim wrote13 that one should take care not to peel the egg until the time it is eaten, so that it will not become forbidden on account of being left overnight.
Question: Nowadays, is there a preference for other foods over taking an egg?
Answer: Indeed, we have seen that any cooked dish that is not disrespectful may be taken l'chatchilah for an eruv tavshilin. However, the Shelah wrote14: 'I have seen great multitudes who take bread, and take meat — one lowly and paltry bone. Certainly, as far as the law is concerned, they fulfill their obligation; but a mitzvah is beloved in its proper time15, and let this mitzvah not be light in your eyes. And not for nothing did our Rabbis z"l say16 that Avraham Avinu fulfilled the mitzvah of eruv tavshilin; and in Sefer Yuchasin a secret is written regarding this matter. Therefore every man who rejoices in the mitzvah should take bread that is prepared for the morning seudah of Shabbos, or for Seudah Shlishis, and should also take an important cooked dish that is prepared for him for the seudah of Shabbos, such as a piece of fine fish, or meat, or chicken — from what Hashem has graciously given him — that is prepared for him for the Shabbos morning seudah or for Seudah Shlishis. But those people who take a small bone, while in any case they prepare a Shabbos seudah — if so, they perform the mitzvah with disrespect for nothing, and possibly afterward they throw it away. Therefore it is a good minhag to practice as I have written'.
Similarly, it is written in the Siddur of the Arizal: 'And it should not be a goose wing or the meat of a shankbone'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe, who wrote in the Siddur: 'On Erev Yom Tov he should take the bread of Shabbos, and also an important cooked dish with it, such as meat or fish'. And he did not mention eggs.
If so, nowadays, when it is possible to preserve foods, one should endeavor to take an important cooked dish for the eruv, such as meat or fish17.
Notes:
1 16a ↩
2 The Magen Avraham wrote in se'if katan 2: 'And Rashi wrote that we require something that one does not eat every day, so that the matter is evident that he is making it in honor of Shabbos'. However, the Alter Rebbe and likewise the Mishnah Berurah omitted this law, and the reason for this is written in the Shaar HaTziyun, se'if katan 23: 'And I did not copy it, for in my humble opinion it is difficult to say so, since from the Gemara and the Shulchan Aruch, se'if 6, this is not implied .. Afterward I found in the Nishmas Adam that he also wrote as we did, and he proved this from the law of eggs, regarding which the Rambam wrote that one may make an eruv with them, even though people are certainly accustomed to eat them even on weekdays' ↩
3 Seder Atzeres, siman 246 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 4 ↩
5 Se'if 6 ↩
6 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if katan 7. (In the name of the Bach; however, in the Bach itself it appears otherwise; see there) ↩
7 Shaar HaTziyun, se'if katan 22 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch, siman 527, se'if 11 ↩
9 Se'if 13 ↩
10 Siman 16, Hilchos Yom Tov, p. 215 ↩
11 Year 1, Parshas Tzav – Eruvei Tavshilin, se'if 1 ↩
12 Siman 527, se'if 13 ↩
13 Nitei Gavriel, Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin, ch. 82, din 8. Piskei Teshuvos, siman 527, os 7 ↩
14 Sukkah, Perek Ner Mitzvah, os 25 ↩
15 Pesachim 68b ↩
16 Yoma 28b ↩
17 In Kovetz MiBeis Levi, vol. 1, p. 52, he wrote: 'And many have the custom to take a fish head' ↩
[7] (Halacha 287)
Question: Must the dish for the eruv be cooked on Erev Yom Tov, or may one make the eruv with a jar of gefilte fish?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Beitzah1 says: 'Rabbi Chiya taught: Lentils at the bottom of a pot — one may rely on them for the sake of eruvei tavshilin. And this applies only where they contain a k'zayis. Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Yehudah said: Fat that is on a knife — one scrapes it off and relies on it for the sake of eruvei tavshilin. And this applies only where it contains a k'zayis'. And Rashi explains: '"One may rely on them" — on Erev Yom Tov, for the sake of the eruv; and we do not say that they are insignificant and are nullified. "One scrapes it off" — on Erev Yom Tov'.
From the words of the Gemara we learn that (when he has no other cooked dish) he may use the leftovers of foods that remained to him and make the eruv with them, provided these leftovers contain a k'zayis.
And the Tur wrote2: 'Some say this applies specifically where the lentils were cooked on Erev Yom Tov, and he cut the fat with the knife on Erev Yom Tov, for then there is evidence; but if the lentils and the fat remained from three or four days earlier, one may not rely on them. And it appears that it is permitted in every case'. That is to say, according to the Tur it makes no difference when the dish was cooked — on Erev Yom Tov or even several days before it — one may make the eruv with it.
However, the Bach there wrote: 'Some say that the view of Rashi is that this applies specifically where the lentils were cooked on Erev Yom Tov and the fat was cut with the knife on Erev Yom Tov, for then there is evidence that he left them and scraped it off on Erev Yom Tov for the sake of eruvei tavshilin, and he may rely on it; but if they remained from three or four days earlier, one may not rely on it. And the view of Rabbeinu [= the Tur] is that it is permitted in every case, and Rashi mentioned "on Erev Yom Tov" only to exclude Yom Tov itself .. However, it certainly appears that the choicest way of performing the mitzvah is to make a cooked dish l'chatchilah for the sake of eruvei tavshilin, as we learned: "And one prepares a dish on Erev Yom Tov," etc. .. For all agree that l'chatchilah the choicest way of performing the mitzvah is to make a cooked dish, but where he forgot, he may rely on it b'dieved. However, by strict law he may rely on it even l'chatchilah, even though he did not forget, only he has not performed the mitzvah in the choicest way'.
From the words of the Bach we see that there is a deficiency in the leftovers of the lentil dish in that it was not prepared specifically for the sake of eruv tavshilin; therefore he wrote that according to all opinions the choicest way of performing 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 leftovers of the lentil dish is on account of disrespect to the mitzvah, as is stated explicitly in the Alter Rebbe3, that it is because of disrespect to the mitzvah.
And seemingly, the law depends on these two reasons: whether one should be meticulous to cook a special dish on Erev Yom Tov for the sake of the eruv tavshilin, or whether there is no need for this and one may take any cooked dish, the main thing being that it be respectable for the mitzvah.
As the Mishnah Berurah wrote4 regarding using the leftovers of lentils for the eruv: 'And see further what is written in the name of the poskim, that this is specifically when he has nothing else with which to make the eruv; so wrote the Beis Yosef and the Acharonim. And the Graz wrote the reason: because of disrespect to the mitzvah. However, the Bach wrote a different reason: that it is because it was not cooked for this purpose, since l'chatchilah the choicest way of performing the mitzvah is to make a cooked dish intentionally for the sake of the eruv [and perhaps it suffices if he cooked it for the needs of Shabbos, and these are different, since they were not cooked at all for the needs of Shabbos]; and he also cited this from the implication of the Mordechai. But all this is merely for the choicest way of performing the mitzvah; the eruv, however, 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 Tamid, and he further proved it from what is stated in the Gemara regarding salted fish that a non-Jew roasted, which he certainly did not roast for the sake of an eruv'.
And further on in the siman, the Biur Halacha added5, in accordance with the implication of the Bach mentioned above, that it is preferable to cook for the sake of the eruv specifically on Erev Yom Tov; these are his words: 'And it is also implied from the Beis Yosef that according to the view of those who are stringent, it is good l'chatchilah to make the cooked dish on Erev Yom Tov itself and not before, even though they set it aside on Erev Yom Tov for the sake of the eruv, for so he inferred from the wording of the Mishnah, "And one prepares a dish on Erev Yom Tov," etc. However, if he does not have one, it is certainly valid even l'chatchilah, provided only that he set it aside for the sake of the eruv; and so I wrote above in se'if 6 in the Biur Halacha; see there'. And so wrote Shu"t Ohr L'Tzion6.
However, as mentioned above, it appears from the words of the Alter Rebbe (who holds that the deficiency in the leftovers of the lentil dish is not because it was not made on Erev Yom Tov itself, but because there is disrespect to the mitzvah here), and in addition from the fact that he did not mention that there is a preference to cook the eruv on Erev Yom Tov, and likewise from what he wrote7: 'A species of small fish called "Spanish kolias" (which are called tonina), 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 Erev Yom Tov or before that, it is permitted to make the eruv with them, because through this rinsing they are made fit for eating like actually cooked food'.
This implies that there is no preference in cooking the dish for the sake of the eruv, and specifically on Erev Yom Tov; rather, the main thing is to designate a fitting cooked dish on Erev Yom Tov for the sake of the eruv.
If so, in practice it appears from the words of the Alter Rebbe that there is no hiddur in cooking a special food specifically on Erev Yom Tov for the sake of eruv tavshilin; rather, even a purchased cooked food and the like is fitting, l'chatchilah, to make the eruv tavshilin with, and it is also possible to use ready-made food found in a can.
It is very important to remember, and to remind others, to make the eruv tavshilin properly.
Chag Sameach — may we receive the Torah with joy and inwardly
Notes:
1 16a ↩
2 Orach Chaim, siman 527 ↩
3 Se'if 13 ↩
4 Biur Halacha, siman 527, 6, s.v. "Adashim" ↩
5 Se'if 14, s.v. "L'chatchilah" ↩
6 Vol. 3, ch. 22; these are his words: 'And it is good to be careful about this, and to cook the eruv and bake the bread of the eruv specifically on Erev Yom Tov. And likewise, if he buys bread, he should buy bread that was baked that same day' ↩
7 Se'if 12 ↩
[8] (Halacha 658)
(Continuation of Halacha number 287)
Question: Must one hold the eruv at the time it is set aside (1)?
Answer: The Tur wrote1: 'How does he do it? He takes the eruv in his hand and gives it to someone who acquires it on behalf of those for whom he is making the eruv'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote: 'It is a simple matter that this is speaking of one who wishes to make the eruv on behalf of others, and therefore he needs to transfer ownership; whereas if he does not wish to make the eruv on behalf of others, he does not need to transfer ownership at all, but rather takes the eruv in his hand, recites the bracha, and says: "Through 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 that they called it by the name "eruv," for he begins on Erev Yom Tov to cook for Shabbos and combines together the dishes of Shabbos and Yom Tov, and speech alone does not suffice. And a fool will not understand the coinage of the Sages: "Through this eruv" points with a finger, indicating that he holds the dish of the eruv in his hand. And come and see the wording of the Gaon in the Halachos Gedolos, daf 36: "That it may be permitted for us to bake and to cook from Yom Tov for Shabbos. And how is it done? One takes a loaf of bread on Erev Yom Tov and places upon it meat, or an egg, or fish," etc.; see there. And the wording of the Rif in his responsa, siman 312: "He takes a little roasted and cooked meat and recites the bracha, Baruch Atah Hashem, etc., and he also says: Through this eruv," etc.; see there. And so it is proven from the wording of the Rambam, ch. 6 of Hilchos Yom Tov, and from the words of all the poskim'.
These are the words of the Alter Rebbe4: 'How is the mitzvah of setting aside the eruv tavshilin performed? He takes in his hand a piece of bread containing a k'beitzah, and a k'zayis of cooked meat or some other cooked item containing a k'zayis .. And after he has taken the eruv in his hand, he is obligated to recite the bracha "asher kidshanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu al mitzvas eruv," just as one recites a bracha on all other mitzvos of the Sages'.
And this holding 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 when he recites the bracha'.
If so, before he recites the bracha he must hold the eruv in his right hand, and likewise continue to hold it during the bracha.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the reason that one must hold the eruv at the time of the bracha, and not only while saying the text of the setting aside?
Answer: Tosafos wrote6: '"Prior to their performance" — for this reason one must recite the bracha over the lulav before he takes it .. However, it is not at all reasonable, for how can he recite a bracha over it while it is lying in a vessel? For it is stated in HaKometz Rabbah7: "Tefillin — from when does one recite the bracha over them? From the time of placing them until the time of tying them"; and whenever the mitzvah is not ready in his hand to perform, it is not at all reasonable to recite a bracha over it ..'.
That is to say, according to halacha one must recite the bracha on the mitzvah when the object with which the mitzvah is fulfilled is ready before him for immediate performance, as the Alter Rebbe wrote8: 'All brochos over mitzvos must be recited before beginning the performance of the mitzvah. Therefore, over the hand tefillin one should recite the bracha after placing it on the biceps, before tying, for this tying is the beginning of its performance; and over the head tefillin one should recite the bracha after placing it on the head, before he tightens it well on his head, for the tightening is the beginning of its performance. But he should not recite the bracha before placing it on the biceps or on the head, because one must bring the bracha close to the performance of the mitzvah and juxtapose them to each other as much as possible'.
And similarly he wrote regarding the bracha of HaMotzi9: 'One should not recite HaMotzi before he takes hold of the bread in his hand, just as one recites brochos over mitzvos only close to their performance, when the mitzvah is ready in his hand to perform it, and not before that, as was explained in siman 25'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Chazal stated a great principle that all brochos are recited prior to their performance, that is, before actually fulfilling the mitzvah. Why, then, does he take the eruv here before the bracha?
Answer: This question is explained according to the words of the Alter Rebbe10 (with added explanation in square brackets), with the preface that the Acharonim disagreed as to whether the text recited when setting aside the eruv tavshilin is indispensable (this will be explained, with Hashem's help, in a separate halacha). These are his words: '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 through his setting it aside, according to the Maharshal11 and the Taz12 [who held that the text of the eruv tavshilin is not indispensable; if so, seemingly the mitzvah has already been fulfilled by the very holding of the eruv for the sake of the eruv — so why is the bracha recited only after the fulfillment of the mitzvah? The Alter Rebbe explains in two ways]: (a) nevertheless, it can be said [that even though there is no obligation to say the text of the setting aside, nevertheless,] since he had in mind to say over it "Through this it shall be permitted," etc., [if so,] the mitzvah is not completed until he says it ..'. (b) Alternatively, it can be said that since [even the Maharshal and the Taz, who hold that the text is not indispensable, agree that] it is the choicest way of performing the mitzvah to say [the text of the setting aside] "Through this," etc., [therefore this] is called "prior to its performance", as we find regarding taking the lulav .. [where one recites the bracha over the lulav after holding it, since the shaking remains to be done, even though the shaking is not indispensable by strict law and is only for the choicest way of performing the mitzvah13].
If so, 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 recited prior to the performance, since afterward one says the text of the eruv, through which the mitzvah is completed.
In the next halacha we will discuss, with Hashem's help, whether holding it in the hand is indispensable.
--------------
Notes:
1 Orach Chaim, siman 527 ↩
2 There, se'ifim 11–12 ↩
3 Shu"t Chaim Sha'al vol. 1, siman 29 ↩
4 Siman 527, se'ifim 3–4 ↩
5 Orach Chaim, siman 206, se'if 8 ↩
6 Sukkah 39a ↩
7 Menachos 35b ↩
8 Orach Chaim, siman 25, se'if 17 ↩
9 Orach Chaim, siman 167, se'if 6 ↩
10 Siman 527, Kuntres Acharon, se'if katan 2 ↩
11 Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah, ch. 2, siman 8 ↩
12 Se'if katan 7 ↩
13 These are the words of the Alter Rebbe (Orach Chaim, siman 263, Kuntres Acharon, se'if katan 3): 'For it is no worse than the remnants of mitzvos, over which one may recite a bracha, such as the shaking of the lulav, even though he has already fulfilled the essence of the mitzvah without a bracha' ↩
[9] (Halacha 659)
Holding the eruv at the time of designating it (2)
Question: We have learned that one must hold the eruv. What is the halacha for a person who cannot hold the eruv, for example because he is at a distance from his home?
Answer: The Magen Avraham writes1: 'And it seems to me that one who is in the beis haknesses and did not set aside an eruv tavshilin, and if he goes home to set aside the eruv tavshilin the time of Mincha will pass, should daven Mincha and not set aside the eruv tavshilin, since he can transfer ownership of his flour to others'.
And so writes the Alter Rebbe2: 'One who is in the beis haknesses on Erev Yom Tov close to nightfall and has not yet davened the Mincha tefillah, and he remembers that he has not yet set aside an eruv tavshilin, and if he goes home to set aside the eruv tavshilin the time of the Mincha tefillah will pass, should daven Mincha and not set aside the eruv tavshilin, since it is possible to transfer ownership of his flour to others, as will be explained'.
And many poskim have written3 that from the plain wording of the Magen Avraham it appears that it is not possible to designate the eruv from a distance, and therefore the Magen Avraham wrote that there is no remedy other than transferring ownership of his flour.
And so writes the Chida in Shu"t Chaim Sha'al4, cited in Ikrei HaDat5, and in Zechor LeAvraham (Alkalai)6: 'Question: A certain person was sitting in the beis haknesses and remembered that he had not made an eruv tavshilin, and there in the beis haknesses he recited the bracha on the mitzvah of eruv and said, "With such-and-such cooked dish that is in my house, let it be permitted for me to bake," etc. And you, holy one, have asked of me whether he acted properly, and the Merciful One will answer you, and your reward will be doubled from Heaven .. See, it is called by the name "eruv" because one begins on Erev Yom Tov to cook for Shabbos and mixes together the cooked dishes of Shabbos and Yom Tov, and speech alone does not suffice. And the fool will not understand the formula of the Sages: "BeHadein Eruva" ("with this eruv") points with a finger, indicating that he holds the cooked dish of the eruv in his hand'.
However, the Tiferes Yisrael writes7: 'And in my humble opinion, if he has bread and a cooked dish in his home, he can also say in the beis haknesses, "The bread and cooked dish that I will take when I come home shall from now be for an eruv tavshilin; Blessed are You, Hashem, our G-d, King of the universe," etc. For even though he has many loaves in his home, in a Rabbinic matter there is bereirah. And even though the eruv is not in his hand at the time of the bracha, this does not matter to us, for the bracha on eruv chatzeiros is said at the time one collects it, as in siman 366, and nevertheless it is permitted to collect it through a minor, even though it is inconceivable that the minor should recite the bracha on behalf of the adult'8.
And in Shu"t Divrei Malkiel9 he writes regarding the words of the Chaim Sha'al: 'And in my humble opinion his words require examination, for in eruvei chatzeiros too one must say "BeHadein Eruva," and nevertheless one can make the eruv even in another place, as we rule in Eruvin 71 and in siman 369 that one may rely, for the purpose of the eruv, on what he has in his fellow's house .. And also, this is no worse than one who acquires on behalf of others, on which people rely even though they certainly did not see and do not know which cooked dish he made for the eruv tavshilin. And furthermore, the poskim have written that we rule like Rav Ashi in Beitzah 15b, that the reason is so that people should not say that one may bake on Yom Tov for a weekday. And in this case certainly one cannot say that he must specifically take it in his hand, for it is merely a sign. And so it appears from the language of the Gemara in Beitzah 16a: "Lentils at the bottom of the pot — he may rely on them for the purpose of eruv tavshilin," which implies that mere reliance suffices and he need not take it in his hand; and it need not even be before him .. And in the Magen Avraham, siman 527, se'if katan 1, it implies somewhat like the Chaim Sha'al, for he writes there that if he is in the beis haknesses and cannot go home to make the eruv tavshilin, he can rely on the leading rav of the city10. And this is difficult: surely he can make the eruv tavshilin in the beis haknesses and designate bread and a cooked dish that are in the house! This proves that it is forbidden to do so. But one can deflect this: perhaps he is speaking of a case where he does not know what to designate, or where he has no prepared cooked dish that he can leave over for Shabbos. And one cannot say that it is forbidden to recite a bracha without an action, and therefore one may make an eruv tavshilin only when he takes it in his hand — for we have already written in siman 6 that in such a case, where through his speech or thought he performs an action, it is properly considered an action .. Therefore it seems to me in my humble opinion that there is room to be lenient and make an eruv tavshilin in a time of pressing need in such a manner'11.
And in practice the Acharonim tended to be stringent in accordance with the view of the Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe12.
Thus we have seen that when the food is not near the person, he should not make an eruv tavshilin from a distance, and he should use the other permitted methods brought in the poskim13 (and with Hashem's help we will explain them in another halacha).
--------------
Notes:
1 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if katan 1 ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 10 ↩
3 See Shu"t Maharsham, vol. 2, siman 36; Shu"t Divrei Malkiel, vol. 3, siman 8; Shu"t Shevet HaLevi, vol. 8, siman 123. [And see Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak, vol. 7, siman 36, regarding the view of the Magen Avraham. However, what he writes regarding the view of the Alter Rebbe — that after the fact it is acceptable — seemingly his words, which make the law of holding dependent on the law of the recitation, are not compelling, for it is possible that the Sages' enactment was to hold it in the hand, and in addition they instituted a formula which, although it is not indispensable, expresses the obligation of holding. And this is not the place to elaborate.] ↩
4 Vol. 1, siman 29 ↩
5 Orach Chaim, siman 24 ↩
6 Vol. 3, entry "Eruv" ↩
7 Beitzah, ch. 2, Boaz, os 2 ↩
8 In the glosses Tiferes Yaakov (printed at the end of the Seder) there, he remarks on this that the Acharonim did not write so. And see what the Maharsham writes there at the end ↩
9 Vol. 3, siman 8 ↩
10 This requires examination, for the Magen Avraham did not write so; rather, it is the Mateh Efraim, which will be cited below in a note ↩
11 And so writes the Be'er Moshe (Stern), Shu"t, vol. 3, siman 95. And in the Shevet HaLevi there he writes that one who relies on them is not to be dismissed ↩
12 See Elef HaMagen 625, se'if katan 51: 'However, even though from the poskim and Acharonim it is implied that it does not help, nevertheless it is possible that one may rely on this in a time of pressing need, and he should say the above formula without a bracha (for the bracha is not indispensable, and he should also rely on the leading rav of the city)'. And see also Ketzei HaMateh, os 53, that this is implied by the early poskim and the Acharonim, but he leaves it as requiring examination whether one may rely on the Tiferes Yisrael in a time of pressing need ↩
13 The Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe wrote that he should transfer ownership of his flour, as above. And the Mateh Efraim writes (siman 625, se'if 37): 'And it seems that in this case too he may rely on the leading rav of the city. And if possible, he should ask a neighbor near the beis haknesses to transfer to him bread and a cooked dish and make the eruv tavshilin; he should be particular about this, since he can thereby fulfill both. And one who is on the road and sees that he will not be home at nightfall, and it is possible that in a nearby village or in a house near the city, before night falls, he can acquire there bread and a cooked dish suitable for making the eruv, or have them acquired for him there, and make an eruv tavshilin — he should be diligent and remember to do so'. And in Elef LaMateh (os 55) he writes that it is possible that according to the Magen Avraham one may not rely on the leading rav of the city, and these are his words: 'See the Magen Avraham, who wrote that he should daven Mincha since he can transfer ownership, etc. This implies that relying on the leading rav of the city does not help here, since it is still in his power to set aside the eruv, only that he actively pushes it off because of the obligation of Mincha; and in this case we regard his having forgotten until the time of Mincha arrived as forgetting through laziness, which is considered negligent, as explained there. But this is not compelling, for one can say that forgetting in such a manner is also considered beyond his control, and the Magen Avraham stated his ruling for a place where there is no leading rav of the city, that he should daven Mincha since it is possible to transfer ownership. And in truth, in my humble opinion, even in a place where there are no others to whom he can transfer ownership, why should he push off the Mincha tefillah, which is an obligation of the hour that recurs regularly? And this requires examination' ↩
[10] (Halacha 660)
The Alter Rebbe writes1 that after a person recites the bracha on the eruv tavshilin: 'And afterwards he should say: "Bedein yehei sharei lana la'afuyei u'levashulei u'le'atmunei u'le'adlukei shraga u'lemebad kol tzorchana miyoma tava le'Shabbsa" ("Through this it shall be permitted for us to bake, to cook, to insulate food, to light a lamp, and to do all our needs from Yom Tov for Shabbos")'.
Question: Must one understand the formula, or is it sufficient to say it in Lashon HaKodesh even without understanding it?
Answer: The Sefer Minhagei Maharil writes2: 'The Mahari Segal said .. and if he does not know Lashon HaKodesh, he can say it in the language of Ashkenaz'.
And the Rema writes in Darchei Moshe3: 'The Maharil writes that if he does not know how to say the eruv in Lashon HaKodesh, he should say it in a secular language'. And in the gloss in the Shulchan Aruch4 he writes: 'And one who does not know Lashon HaKodesh5 can say it in the vernacular that he understands'.
And the Biur HaGra writes6: Both according to the reason of Rava, so that he should select, etc., and according to the reason of Rav Ashi, so that people should say, he must understand, and he fulfills his obligation with it.
That is, the Gra writes that according to both reasons for which the eruv was instituted (the honor of Yom Tov or the honor of Shabbos), one must say it in a manner that he understands.
However, regarding the language of the Rema there is room for discussion, as the Alter Rebbe writes in the Kuntres Acharon7 concerning one who does not understand Lashon HaKodesh, that there is a doubt whether he is obligated to translate or whether he is merely permitted to translate into a language that he understands — that is, that translating is only the optimal way of performing the mitzvah. These are his words: 'He does not understand, etc. Now regarding this law there is a doubt whether it is optional or obligatory, for in Darchei Moshe he copied in the name of the Maharil "he should say it in the language," etc., which implies somewhat that it is obligatory. And this is certainly so according to what the Rema wrote in the name of the Ohr Zarua, with whom the Magen Avraham agreed, that if he did not mention the melachos explicitly, even though he said "to do all our needs," he has said nothing, because he must stipulate that through this eruv all the melachos will be permitted to him. If so, one who does not know what he is saying has obviously done nothing; even though he knows that this is an eruv tavshilin, nevertheless he does not know the matter of the melachos about which he is stipulating, and this is not a stipulation, since his mouth and his heart are not in accord. But according to what the Taz and the Rashal wrote, that this recitation is not at all indispensable, just as the bracha is not indispensable, one can say 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 Brochos in the name of the Ra'avad, the same applies to this recitation8, since he knows that he is making an eruv tavshilin so that it will be permitted for him to prepare the needs of Shabbos on Yom Tov. And the Maharil requires examination9'.
That is, the Alter Rebbe is in doubt whether it is obligatory to say it in a language that one understands, or whether it is not obligatory but only optional. The reason for the doubt is that in the source of the law, the Maharil, it says "he can say it in the language of Ashkenaz," but the Rema in Darchei Moshe wrote "he should say it in a secular language," and from his wording one can understand that this is an instruction that this is what must be done, and not merely an option. And the Alter Rebbe explains that the side that holds one is obligated to translate is based on the view of the Ohr Zarua [and so the Rema rules in the gloss, se'if 20], who wrote that a person who made an eruv and did not mention all the melachos he wishes to perform by means of the eruv will be permitted to perform only those melachos he mentioned. Accordingly, a person who said the formula without understanding it is like one who did not explicitly mention the melachos, and the eruv will not help him. This is not so according to the view of the Maharshal and the Taz, who held that the formula is not indispensable; according to them, even though he does not understand exactly what he said, since he knows that it is an eruv, it is effective.
And in practice the Alter Rebbe writes10: 'And if he does not understand Aramaic, he should say it in a language 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 Rema in Darchei Moshe, and not his language in the Shulchan Aruch, that he "can" translate. And this accords with his view (there, se'if 7) that one should initially be stringent and take into account the view of the Ohr Zarua11.
And the Mishnah Berurah writes12 on the words of the Rema, "he can," etc. — that is, he must say it. And in the Sha'ar HaTziyun13 he explains: 'So it is proven from the Biur HaGra, and it is obvious, especially according to the Rema in se'if 20 that the recitation is indispensable. And see the Kuntres Acharon of the Gaon Rabbi Zalman'.
And simply, his intention is that, as above, the Alter Rebbe explained that the laws are dependent on one another; if so, the Rema, who ruled that the recitation is indispensable, must necessarily hold that understanding the formula is indispensable. Perforce we must say that even the Rema, who wrote "he can," did not mean that it is only optional, but rather that since he is able to translate, he must therefore do so.
Thus, in practice, one should initially say the formula of the eruv in a language that he understands.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 5 ↩
2 Hilchos Eruvei Tavshilin [os 9] ↩
3 Orach Chaim, siman 527, os 12 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 12 ↩
5 It should be noted that the Rema wrote *Lashon HaKodesh*, while the Alter Rebbe wrote *Aramaic*. And see the Chok Yaakov, Orach Chaim, siman 434, se'if katan 11, in the name of the Eliyahu Zuta, that the Rema calls the language of the Talmud "Lashon HaKodesh" in relation to other languages ↩
6 Os 24 ↩
7 Se'if katan 1 ↩
8 And see the Nimukei Yom Tov there, os 5, who discusses whether according to the view of the Taz one may initially say 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 clear that it is optional (and an error crept into the Shulchan Aruch HaMevuar there, os 17) ↩
10 Siman 527, se'if 5 ↩
11 This is unlike what is written in the Shulchan Aruch Admur HaZaken HaMevuar (Alashvili), in the Biurim, os 46, that because of the doubt the Alter Rebbe used the wording "he should say," which can be understood both in the sense of an obligation and in the sense of an option ↩
12 Se'if katan 40 ↩
13 Se'if katan 55 ↩
[11] (Halacha 1088)
(Continued from halacha number 660)
Question: Must the leading rav of the city set aside an eruv tavshilin for the entire city, and should others also do so?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Beitzah1 says: 'Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: Eruvei tavshilin require intent. This is obvious — we require the intent of the one who sets it aside; but do we require the intent of the one for whom it was set aside, or not? Come and hear: The father of Shmuel would make an eruv for all of Nehardea; Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi would make an eruv for all of Teveria. Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi would announce: Whoever has not set aside an eruv tavshilin, let him come and rely on mine. And up to what distance? Rav Nechumi bar Zecharyah said in the name of Abaye: up to the techum Shabbos. There was a certain blind man who would arrange the Mishnayos before Mar Shmuel. He saw that he was sad and said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not set aside an eruv tavshilin. He said to him: Rely on mine. The next year he saw that he was sad and said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not set aside an eruv tavshilin. He said to him: You are negligent; for everyone else it is permitted, but for you it is forbidden'.
> It is explained in the Gemara that the practice of the father of Shmuel, and of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi, was to set aside an eruv on behalf of all the people of the city.
And the Rambam writes2: 'And he does not need to inform those on whose behalf he acquired it on Erev Yom Tov, but they must know that another has already acquired on their behalf and made the eruv for them, and afterwards they may rely on him and cook and bake. Even if they found out only on Yom Tov, they are permitted. And a person should make an eruv for the entire city and for all those near it within the techum, and the next day he announces and says: Whoever has not set aside an eruv tavshilin may rely on my eruv'.
And the Rosh3 writes: 'For certainly every leading rav of a city should make an eruv for all the people of his city, and the practical difference is for one who was preoccupied and could not make an eruv, or who forgot and did not make an eruv. But initially a person should not rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city; rather, every person must set aside an eruv in his home. And if he remembered and did not set aside an eruv, and initially relies on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, he is negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through his eruv, as we say below: There was a certain blind man who would arrange the Mishnayos before Shmuel. One day he saw that he was sad and said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not set aside an eruv tavshilin. He said to him: Rely on mine. Another year he saw that he was sad and said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not set aside an eruv tavshilin. He said to him: You are negligent; for everyone else it is permitted, but for you it is forbidden'.
However, the expression "yesh lo" ("he has") that the Rambam and the Rosh wrote could be explained to mean that he has the option to do so. But from the words of the Tur it is clear that "yesh lo" means that he must do it, and it is a mitzvah upon him to do so, as is written in the Kitzur Piskei HaRosh there: 'It is a mitzvah upon the leading rav of the city to set aside an eruv tavshilin4, and the practical difference is for one who is preoccupied and did not set it aside, that he may rely on him. But it is a mitzvah upon every person to set aside his own eruv, and if he did not set it aside he is called negligent'.
And so he writes in his sefer, the Tur5, and it is brought in the Minhogim of the house of the Maharam, Eruvei Tavshilin: 'It is a mitzvah upon every person to make an eruv, and it is also a mitzvah upon every leading rav of a city to make an eruv for all the people of his city'.
And so the Mechaber rules as halacha6: 'It is a mitzvah upon every person to make an eruv, and it is a mitzvah upon every leading rav of a city to make an eruv for all the people of his city, so that one who forgot, or was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, or who set aside an eruv and it was lost, may rely on him. But one who was able to make an eruv and did not, and instead wishes to rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, is called negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through it'.
And furthermore, we find situations in which this is not only a mitzvah but an obligation incumbent on the leading rav of the generation, as the Magen Avraham writes7: 'And if so, he must set aside an eruv on behalf of the widows who do not know how to make an eruv themselves, but those who know must make the eruv themselves'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe8: 'Even though every person is obligated to make an eruv in his home, nevertheless every leading rav of a city should make an eruv for all the people of his city, so that if one of them forgets to make an eruv, or is preoccupied and has no time to make an eruv on Erev Yom Tov, or one who is unlearned and does not know how to make an eruv, or one who made an eruv and his eruv was lost on Yom Tov before he prepared the needs of Shabbos — all these will be able to rely on his eruv, which he makes on behalf of all the people of the city ..'.
And he further writes9: 'And it has already been explained that every leading rav of a city should grant a share in his eruv to all the people of his city, and especially if there are widows in the city who do not know how to make an eruv, or other unlearned people who do not know how to make an eruv, for then it is an obligation upon the people of their city to save them from sin, since all of Yisrael are responsible for one another'.
And in practice, the widespread minhag is that not only the leading rav of the city does so on behalf of all the people of the city, but rather everyone does it this way, as the Maharshal writes10: '.. nowadays, since the formula of the eruv written in the siddurim is that each and every one makes the eruv for everyone, saying: "Let it be permitted for me and for all of Yisrael who dwell in this city"'.
And as is apparent from the words of several Rishonim on the order of eruvei tavshilin, who wrote as a simple matter the acquisition and the formula for all the people of the city, as is written in Sefer HaOrah11: 'And how does he do it? He takes bread and places on it meat, or an egg, or fish, when they are cooked, and grants a share to all the people of the city through another person'. And so too the Alter Rebbe writes in his Siddur.
The Rebbe addressed this practice on Erev Rosh Hashanah 574812: 'And in this there is a special emphasis, the like of which we do not find in eruv chatzeiros, nor in eruv techumin and the like: that in making the eruv, one grants the eruv not only to himself and the members of his household but rather (in the customary wording) "lana u'lechol Yisrael hadarim ba'ir hazos" ("for us and for all of Yisrael who dwell in this city"), that is, all the Jewish people with whom he has a connection, and also those with whom he will have a connection — in accordance with the practical halacha that one who did not make an eruv himself fulfills his obligation .. through their having granted him a share in the eruv .. And from this we learn the great effect of each and every individual on his surroundings, and the power he has to influence the community, etc.'.
> Thus we have seen that the leading rav of the city has a mitzvah to make an eruv on behalf of all the people of the city, and in certain situations this is even an obligation; and that the minhag in practice is that not only the leading rav of the city, but everyone who can, grants a share to others. And in the next halacha we will see for whom this eruv is effective.
Notes:
1 16b ↩
2 Hilchos Yom Tov, ch. 6, halacha 7 ↩
3 Beitzah, ch. 2, siman 3 ↩
4 And see the question raised by the Taz there, se'if katan 8, and what is written to resolve it in Shu"t Arugas HaBosem, Orach Chaim, siman 172, and Shu"t Binyan Av, vol. 2, siman 24 ↩
5 Orach Chaim, siman 527 ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, there, se'if 7 ↩
7 There, se'if katan 11 ↩
8 There, se'if 14 ↩
9 There, se'if 20 ↩
10 Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah, ch. 2, siman 10; cited in the Taz there, se'if katan 10 ↩
11 Din Eruvei Tavshilin; and so it is in Machzor Vitry, Hilchos Pesach (pp. 254–310), siman 76 ↩
12 Toras Menachem 5747, vol. 4, p. 423 ↩
[12] (Halacha 1089)
Question: May anyone rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Beitzah1 says: 'What is meant by "לאין נכון לו" ("to those for whom nothing is prepared")2? Rav Chisda said: To one who did not set aside an eruv tavshilin. Some say: To one who was unable to set aside an eruv tavshilin, but one who was able to set aside an eruv tavshilin and did not set it aside is negligent'. [Rashi: 'Who was unable to set it aside — for example, he lost an item on Erev Yom Tov and was searching for it the entire day'].
It is explained in the words of the Gemara that one who should have set aside an eruv tavshilin and did not set it aside is considered negligent.
And likewise we have seen the words of the Gemara3: 'There was a certain sumya [=blind man] who would arrange the Mishnayos before Mar Shmuel. He saw that he was sad and said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not set aside an eruv tavshilin. He said to him: Rely on mine. The next year he saw that he was sad and said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: Because I did not set aside an eruv tavshilin. He said to him: You are negligent; for everyone else it is permitted, but for you it is forbidden'.
> And the Rishonim disagreed in explaining the words of the Gemara — why it did not help that blind man in the second year as well to rely on the eruv of Shmuel. Some explained that every person is obligated to make it himself, and the very fact of forgetting a second time shows that he is not concerned about the words of the Sages. And some wrote that a person may rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, but that blind man knew (certainly in the second year) that Shmuel makes it for the people of the city, and nevertheless he wanted to make it himself; therefore he cannot rely on the eruv of Shmuel. As follows:
The Rosh writes4: 'For every person is obligated to set aside an eruv tavshilin, and he should not rely on the leading rav of the city who sets it aside for all the people of the city, as we say below: Shmuel would make an eruv for all of Nehardea; Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi would make an eruv for all of Teveria. For certainly every leading rav of a city should make an eruv for all the people of his city, and the practical difference is for one who was preoccupied and could not make an eruv, or who forgot and did not make an eruv. But initially a person should not rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city; rather, every person must set aside an eruv in his home. And if he remembered and did not set aside an eruv, and initially relies on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, he is negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through his eruv ..'.
However, the Ba'al HaMaor5 writes: 'There are those who find it difficult: since Shmuel would make an eruv for all of Nehardea, and we do not require the intent of the one for whom it was set aside, why did that blind man not fulfill his obligation through Shmuel's eruv, included among all the people of Nehardea? And some have said in resolving this difficulty: since that man knew about Shmuel that he would make an eruv for all of Nehardea, yet he would make an eruv for himself and did not want to fulfill his obligation through Shmuel's eruv but rather through his own eruv, and he was negligent with his eruv year after year — therefore Shmuel said to him: You have already revealed your intention that you do not want to fulfill your obligation through my eruv, since you are saddened when you remember that you did not make an eruv for yourself, and you were negligent in this matter year after year; I too have no intention to include anyone except one who relied on me, or one who is not knowledgeable, or one who erred or was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, but I have no intention to include the negligent'.
> Thus it is explained that according to the view of the Rosh it is not possible initially to rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, whereas according to the explanation brought in the Ba'al HaMaor one may initially rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city.
The Ohr Zarua6 brought both explanations: 'Rashi explained .. "for you it is forbidden," for my intention does not extend to the rebellious and the negligent who are not concerned about the words of the Sages — end of quote. Our master Rabbi Yitzchak bar Asher explained: from here it is implied that for eruvei tavshilin each and every one must make an eruv for himself, and it is forbidden to rely on others except when he forgot; for because he did not set it aside two times, he called him negligent and forbade him to rely on him. And some explain that this is what he said to him: since last year you knew that I make an eruv on your behalf, and now too you are sad, you have revealed your intention that you did not intend yesterday to rely on me; and since you did not wish to rely on me and you also did not set it aside yourself, you are negligent. But the language of Rashi does not imply this. Therefore our master Rabbi Yitzchak bar Asher explained that each and every one must set aside an eruv tavshilin; it is like the case of one who forgot'.
Rabbeinu Yerucham7 brought the words of the Rosh and wrote: 'But my teacher, Rabbi Avraham ben Ishmael, wrote: And it is reasonable that nowadays, when the custom is that the shliach tzibbur makes an eruv for all the people of the town and announces it, it is permitted to rely on him initially, and one is not negligent'.
> Thus the Rishonim disagreed8 whether a person may initially rely on the eruv that the leading rav of the city sets aside9.
As halacha, the Mechaber writes10: 'It is a mitzvah upon every person to make an eruv, and it is a mitzvah upon every leading rav of a city to make an eruv for all the people of his city, so that one who forgot, or was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, or who set aside an eruv and it was lost, may rely on him. But one who was able to make an eruv and did not, and instead wishes to rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, is called negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through it'.
And the Mishnah Berurah writes11: 'And know that many poskim disagree with this, and according to them every person may initially rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, and the leading rabbonim too intend in their eruv to transfer a share to every person in any case. And who is the one who does not fulfill his obligation through their eruv? One who each time makes it himself and does not want to rely on the eruv of the leading rav, and afterwards it happened that he forgot several times and did not make it — in such a case the leading rav does not include him, since it was not his way to rely on the leading rav. And perhaps after the fact one may rely on these poskim and be lenient because of the simchah of Yom Tov'.
However, the Alter Rebbe12 writes: 'But one who had time to make an eruv, and because of his laziness, in that he is not concerned about the word of Hashem, forgot and did not make an eruv — since he was not prevented by circumstances beyond his control in this forgetting, but rather his laziness caused him to forget, he is negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through the eruv of the leading rav, even though he specifically intended to include him in his eruv. And needless to say, if he did not forget at all but rather relied on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, or on another person who intended to include him in his eruv, he does not fulfill his obligation through this eruv at all, for every person is obligated to make an eruv himself, or to instruct others to make the eruv in his house from his own food, for a person's agent is like himself'.
It is explained in his words that he ruled in accordance with the words of the Mechaber, that one who did not make an eruv himself and relied on the eruv of the leading rav of the city is called negligent and may not cook on Yom Tov, even after the fact.
> Thus we have seen that each person must make an eruv himself and not rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city. And in the next halacha we will see who those are who may indeed rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city.
Notes:
1 15b ↩
2 Nechemiah 8:10 ↩
3 There, 16b ↩
4 Beitzah, ch. 2, simanim 2–3 ↩
5 Beitzah 9a in the pages of the Rif ↩
6 Hilchos Yom Tov, siman 343 ↩
7 Toldos, Orach Chaim, Nesiv 4, part 3, 32d ↩
8 And see the sources noted in the Sha'ar HaTziyun, siman 527, se'if katan 38 ↩
9 And the Rishonim further disagreed whether the reason he does not fulfill his obligation is an enactment of the Sages because of his negligence (the implication of the Rosh), or because the leading rav does not intend it for him (see above in the Ohr Zarua, and in the words of the Ran, and in the Beis Yosef). And in practice too they disagreed on this: the Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 26, writes that the leading rav does not intend it for him, while the Alter Rebbe writes: 'and he does not fulfill his obligation through the eruv of the leading rav, even though he specifically intended to include him in his eruv'. And this is not the place to elaborate ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 7 ↩
11 There, se'if katan 26 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch, there, se'if 14 ↩
[13] (Halacha 1090)
In the previous halacha we saw that each person must make an eruv tavshilin himself, and it is not possible to rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city.
Question: Who are those who may indeed rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city?
Answer: We find in the words of the poskim five cases in which the eruv of the leading rav of the city is effective: a) one who is preoccupied; b) one who forgets; c) one whose eruv was lost; d) an unlearned person who does not know how to make an eruv; e) one who is not a talmid chacham and thought that it is possible to rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city. As follows:
In the previous halacha we saw the words of Rashi, who wrote that one who was preoccupied is not considered negligent.
And the Rosh writes1: 'Every leading rav of a city should make an eruv for all the people of his city, and the practical difference is for one who was preoccupied and could not make an eruv, or who forgot and did not make an eruv'.
And the Ohr Zarua writes2: 'However, an unlearned person who does not know the nature of eruvei tavshilin is considered like one who forgot'.
And so writes the Recanati3: 'The Riva said that a person cannot rely on his fellow's eruv except when he forgot, and not when he was negligent, from the incident of that blind man. However, an unlearned person who does not know about eruvei tavshilin is considered like one who forgot'.
And the Rashba in a responsum4 writes: 'You asked concerning one who set aside an eruv tavshilin and his eruv was eaten, and there are others in the city who set aside an eruv — may he rely on him or not? Answer: He relies on the one who set aside the eruv ..'.
And the Maharshal writes5: 'The general rule is: anyone who forgot because of his laziness, in that he was not concerned about the word of Hashem, whether a Torah scholar or an unlearned person, should not rely on others who set it aside. But one who was preoccupied and could not set it aside, or who forgot due to circumstances beyond his control, may rely on others who set it aside. And initially one should not rely on others; but if he relied, and did not know that each person is obligated to set it aside, like an ordinary householder, it is considered as beyond his control. But if he is a person of learning, he is considered negligent, for he should have been meticulous in the mitzvos and not been lax in them; even if he did not know, nevertheless he is negligent, for an inadvertent error in learning is counted as willful6.
As halacha, the Mechaber writes7: 'And it is a mitzvah upon every leading rav of a city to make an eruv for all the people of his city, so that one who forgot, or was prevented by circumstances beyond his control, or who set aside an eruv and it was lost, may rely on him'.
And the Rema writes in the gloss: 'And the same applies to an unlearned person who does not know how to make an eruv'.
And the Magen Avraham writes8: 'He must set aside an eruv on behalf of the widows who do not know how to make an eruv themselves, but those who know must make the eruv themselves'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe9: 'Every leading rav of a city should make an eruv for all the people of his city, so that if one of them forgets to make an eruv, or is preoccupied and has no time to make an eruv on Erev Yom Tov, or one who is unlearned and does not know how to make an eruv, or one who made an eruv and his eruv was lost on Yom Tov before he prepared the needs of Shabbos — all these will be able to rely on his eruv, which he makes on behalf of all the people of the city. But one who had time to make an eruv, and because of his laziness, in that he is not concerned about the word of Hashem, forgot and did not make an eruv — since he was not prevented by circumstances beyond his control in this forgetting, but rather his laziness caused him to forget, he is negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through the eruv of the leading rav, even though he specifically intended to include him in his eruv. And needless to say, if he did not forget at all but rather relied on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, or on another person who intended to include him in his eruv, he does not fulfill his obligation through this eruv at all, for every person is obligated to make an eruv himself, or to instruct others to make the eruv in his house from his own food, for a person's agent is like himself. And if he does not know this halacha and thought that he need not make an eruv himself but rather may rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city, who makes the eruv on behalf of all the people of his city, he is permitted to rely on this eruv, since he was blameless in his error. But if he is a talmid chacham and this halacha escaped him, or he never learned it, he is negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through the eruv of the leading rav, for an inadvertent error in learning is counted as willful'.
And he further writes10: 'Every leading rav of a city should grant a share in his eruv to all the people of his city, and especially if there are widows in the city who do not know how to make an eruv, or other unlearned people who do not know how to make an eruv, for then it is an obligation upon the people of their city to save them from sin, since all of Yisrael are responsible for one another'.
> Thus we have seen that every person must make an eruv himself; however, in five different cases one may rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city. And in the next halacha we will see further details concerning one who forgets to make an eruv.
Notes:
1 Beitzah, ch. 2, siman 3 ↩
2 Hilchos Yom Tov, siman 343, os 8; and so writes the Piskei Maharach Ohr Zarua, os 61; and the Rema in Darchei Moshe, Orach Chaim, siman 527, os 4. And see the Ohr Zarua, Machon Yerushalayim edition, note 137 ↩
3 Siman 147 ↩
4 Vol. 1, siman 683 ↩
5 Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah, ch. 2, siman 6 ↩
6 And see Shu"t Shoel U'Meishiv, Mahadura Tinyana, vol. 1, siman 4: 'And with this is resolved what he said, "for everyone else it is permitted, but for you it is forbidden," and his honor inferred precisely that surely for everyone else too, when they are negligent, it is forbidden .. Now it is explained in the Terumas HaDeshen in the name of the Ohr Zarua, cited in the Chelkas Mechokek and the Beis Shmuel, siman 13 in Even HaEzer, that a talmid chacham who errs in a law is not considered inadvertent but rather willful, and this is from Bava Kamma 95. Accordingly, he rightly said to him: for everyone else it is permitted when he forgot, but for you, who are a talmid chacham, your inadvertence is considered willful, and it is forbidden' ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 7 ↩
8 There, se'if katan 11 ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch, there, se'if 14 ↩
10 There, se'if 20 ↩
[14] (Halacha 1091)
In the previous halacha we saw that one who forgets to make an eruv, not because of laziness, may rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city.
Question: What is the halacha in a case where a person forgot more than once?
Answer: In halacha number 1088 we saw the words of the Gemara1 concerning that blind man who sat in the beis midrash of Shmuel with a sad face because he had forgotten to make an eruv tavshilin. Shmuel told him that he could rely on his eruv, which he had made for all of Nehardea; but when this happened another time, Shmuel told him that he could not rely on his eruv, since he is considered negligent.
And we saw different explanations2 of why only the second time Shmuel told him that he could not rely on his eruv. Some wrote that in the first year that blind man did not know that Shmuel makes it for the entire city, and therefore his wish to make the eruv himself does not indicate that he does not want to rely on Shmuel; only in the second year, when he already knew that Shmuel makes it and nevertheless wanted to make it himself, did he show that he did not intend to rely on Shmuel. And some wrote that he is considered negligent in that he forgot again, for one who forgot once should be more careful not to forget, and therefore one who forgets again is considered negligent.3
The Rashba4 writes: 'One who makes an eruv for all the people of his city, and there was someone there who was not accustomed to rely on him but rather made an eruv for himself, and he forgot and did not make an eruv — he may rely on this one's eruv. When does this apply? When he forgot only once, since he is inadvertent; but if he forgot time after time, he is negligent, and the intention of the one who sets it aside does not extend to the negligent. And it seems to me that if the intention of the one who sets it aside was even for the negligent, it is permitted'.
The Bach5 also writes: 'And specifically the first time, but the second time he is negligent. Just as when he forgot because of preoccupation we consider it beyond his control [the first time], and the second time he is negligent, as in the incident of the blind man who arranged the Mishnayos, who was a person of learning — so too when he did not know, it is beyond his control the first time, and we do not say in such a case that an inadvertent error in learning is counted as willful such that he would not fulfill his obligation through the eruv of the leading rav, as above'
The Tur and the Mechaber wrote that one who forgets may rely on the leading rav of the city, but they did not write that this applies only the first time he forgot.
And in Shu"t Knesses Yechezkel6 he elaborates on this and writes at the conclusion of his words: 'What emerges from our words: it is obvious that one who forgot a second time, where a Yom Tov intervened between them on which he was obligated to make an eruv and he did make an eruv tavshilin, is obviously not called negligent. And even if he forgot consecutively, according to our words he is not called negligent, and one may rely on us in Rabbinic matters'.
And see also the Aruch HaShulchan7, who writes: 'And there is a question here: why did the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch not mention the main case of negligence in the Gemara, when he forgot two times, as in the incident of that blind man, or when there were two Yamim Tovim of eruvei tavshilin one after the other, or with another Yom Tov intervening? And in any case, why did they omit this matter altogether? And it seems to me in my humble opinion that it was obvious to our Rabbis that nowadays, when preoccupation has increased due to our many sins, one cannot apply the term "negligent" to this. And even in the time of the Gemara, perhaps only a great person like that blind man, who arranged the Mishnayos before Shmuel, was called negligent; and therefore the Gemara mentioned that he arranged the Mishnayos, that is, that for such a great person it is certainly negligence, but not for us. And in truth our intention includes everyone; and likewise even one who knew and did not make an eruv — our intention too includes everyone who did not make an eruv, except that this is also not common among us'.
On the other hand, several of the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch did cite this law in practice8.
And regarding the view of the Alter Rebbe: in the laws of eruv tavshilin he too did not mention the law that one who forgets may rely only the first time, and seemingly one could explain his words to mean that anyone who forgets, not because of laziness, may rely on the eruv of the leading rav. However, in the Kuntres Acharon on Yoreh De'ah9, concerning a shochet who let a treifah pass through his hands, he did mention this and wrote: 'And regarding that very treifah that he let pass the first time, even though he did not accept upon himself the obligations of chaverus in the interim, accepting the obligations of chaverus no longer helps him once it has gone out two times, because with two times there is a chazakah that he is negligent, as is written10 in Orach Chaim, siman 527, regarding one who forgets eruvei tavshilin two times; and the same applies here: even though it appeared that it was an inadvertent error and forgetfulness, and that he is a proper person, he is called negligent after two times'.
And so several Chabad rabbonim wrote in practice, that although the Alter Rebbe did not mention this law here in its place, nevertheless one should learn from what he wrote in Yoreh De'ah.
> Thus, one who forgot to make an eruv tavshilin may rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city the first time, but if he forgot another time11 he must conduct himself in the manner explained in the Shulchan Aruch concerning one who did not set aside an eruv tavshilin12, and this will be explained, with Hashem's help, in another halacha.
--------------
Notes:
1 Beitzah 16b ↩
2 See in halacha number 1089 the difference in wording between the words of the Ba'al HaMaor: 'he was negligent with his eruv year after year', and the Ohr Zarua: 'and last year you knew that I make an eruv on your behalf' (and see the Taz, se'if katan 9). And we saw in the halacha there that in practice the Mechaber and the Alter Rebbe ruled that each person must make it himself and one may not rely on the eruv of the leading rav of the city (that is, even apart from his wish to make it himself, he should not rely on the eruv of the leading rav), and likewise they ruled that one who forgets (that is, even though he wanted to make it himself and not rely) may rely on the leading rav of the city. Accordingly, it appears that they adopted the first explanation, that the repetition of the forgetting is the negligence ↩
3 And see the Maharshal (Beitzah, ch. 2, siman 6), who writes differently: that the first time Shmuel thought he had been preoccupied and therefore had not made it, and therefore he permitted him; but the second time he saw that it was due to forgetfulness, and one who forgets is considered negligent ↩
4 Avodas HaKodesh, Beis Mo'ed, sha'ar 4, siman 2, os 10 ↩
5 Orach Chaim, siman 527 ↩
6 Siman 21 ↩
7 Se'if katan 18 ↩
8 See Eliyahu Rabbah, siman 527, se'if katan 10; Be'er Heitev, Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if katan 6; Eshel Avraham (Butchatch), siman 527, se'if 7. And see Mekor Chaim (Bacharach), siman 527, se'if 7: 'What is written in Avodas HaKodesh, daf 45a, that the second time one who forgets is called negligent — and so the Bach rules, and so it seems to me, and there are proofs from various sugyos that the second time is called negligent; and see what I wrote in siman 108, se'if 8, and siman 517, se'if 2'. [And in siman 517, se'if 2, he writes: 'But if he is accustomed. It seems to me that whoever does it two times is called accustomed. See what I wrote in siman 527, se'if 7. And this is a paradigm for every place where our Sages, of blessed memory, permitted something for benefit or for eating after the fact — that when one is accustomed, it is forbidden'] ↩
9 Siman 2, se'if katan 5 ↩
10 See Agurah BeOhalecha (Farkash), vol. 1, siman 23, that since this matter is not mentioned in the Tur or the Shulchan Aruch, one can say that the Alter Rebbe's intention is that he did mention it in his own Shulchan Aruch, and apparently it was omitted from his Shulchan Aruch as we have it. And this requires examination ↩
11 And see the words of the Tzemach Tzedek (Shu"t Yoreh De'ah, siman 3, se'if 4), from which it appears that if the two times were consecutive and he had no awareness between them that he needed to make an eruv, one can say that this is not considered as having forgotten twice ↩
12 And in a time of pressing need he should ask a rav whether he may rely on the above views that even one who forgets again may rely on the leading rav. And it should be added that the Kaf HaChaim writes there, se'if katan 48: 'And it is implied that specifically when he forgot two times one after the other is he considered negligent and does not fulfill his obligation through the eruv of the leading rav; but if he made an eruv after the first Yom Tov on which he forgot, and then forgot again, this is not considered negligent, for it is evident that he is concerned about the words of the Sages and made an eruv, only that forgetfulness caused it, and he fulfills his obligation through the eruv of the leading rav'. However, some disagree with him on this; and see the Chayei Adam and Nishmas Adam, klal 102, se'if 7 ↩
[15] (Halacha 1093)
In the previous halachos we saw that the leading rav of the city makes an eruv on behalf of the other people of the city.
Question: Is it possible to make it also on behalf of the people of another city, or only on behalf of the people of his own city?
Answer: In halacha number 1088 we saw the words of the Gemara1: 'And up to what distance? Rav Nechumi bar Zecharyah said in the name of Abaye: up to the techum Shabbos'. That is, from the words of the Gemara it is understood that one can make an eruv only for someone who is within the techum Shabbos, and not on behalf of someone who is at a greater distance.
And regarding the reason for this, Rashi writes: 'Up to the techum Shabbos — and for those who are outside the techum, the intention of the one who sets it aside was not on them, and it did not occur to him to remember them'.
That is, the deficiency is that the one making the eruv does not think about someone who is outside the techum. This implies that if he did intend to grant a share to someone outside the techum, it is effective, as the Shitah Mekubetzes writes: 'According to his explanation, even if they are able to come by means of an eruv or outlying dwellings. And it appears from his words, of blessed memory, that if he explicitly stipulated that he is granting a share to those outside the techum who are able to come, his stipulation is effective, and so is the view of the Ra'ah'.
And the Rashba writes2: 'You asked concerning what Rabbi Yaakov announced, "Whoever has not set aside an eruv tavshilin, let him come and rely on mine," and that he can grant a share to all the people of the city and to all who dwell within the techum, as we say in the Gemara, "And up to what distance? Up to the techum Shabbos." Do we say this specifically when he spoke without specification, but if he stipulated explicitly, even for those who are able to come by means of eruvei techumin, it is effective? Even for eruv chatzeiros and shitufei mevo'os, if he explicitly granted a share to additional residents, is it effective or not? Answer: It is reasonable that if he explicitly granted a share in the eruvei tavshilin to anyone who will come, even by means of an eruv, he is permitted to do so and it is effective. For this was not said as a halacha without a reason; rather, the reason for the matter is that we require the intent of the one who sets it aside, and the one who sets it aside does not have in mind one who comes by means of an eruv. And this is what is being asked in "up to what distance" — that is, do we say that he has in mind only the people of the city alone and not those outside the city, even within the techum, since they are not accustomed to come into the city and rely on an eruv that was set aside in the city; or even those outside the city, and even the distant ones who are able to come? And we say that his intention includes even these, but those outside the city he does not have in mind, for it is an uncommon matter and his intention is not on them. And as Shmuel said, that within the techum, to the one who arranged the Mishnayos before him: for everyone else it is permitted, but for you it is forbidden — that is, I did not have in mind the negligent and the willful. And therefore all those whom he had in mind acquire a share and may rely on it, and he continues at length. And I also found this from my teachers, the Ba'alei HaTosafos, and so I wrote in my work Avodas HaKodesh'.
[However, this intention will be effective only for one who is outside the techum but is able to come; but for one who lives in another city it will not be effective, and see below]
But the Ran3 writes: '"And up to what distance? Up to the techum Shabbos." For presumably his intention is on all those found within his techum, but beyond this it is possible that even when he specifies and stipulates it is not effective, for it is not proper that one person should make an eruv for the whole world, and we learn from all of these, etc.'.
And it is implied from his words that for anyone outside the techum it will not be effective to make it on his behalf even if he stipulates for him, because it is "not proper" for one person to make an eruv for people who are distant from him.
But the Maharshal4 explained the view of Rashi and the Rashba, and wrote that the reason one cannot make an eruv for those who live far away is that for one who cannot reach the eruv, the eruv is not effective, since it is impossible to consider his cooking on the festival as a continuation of the preparation from Erev Yom Tov. Therefore, in a case where he made an eruv techumin and the one who sets it aside also intended it for him, it will be effective. These are his words: 'And I say that their words need no reinforcement, [for it is an obvious matter] that one who cannot come within his techum, even by means of an eruv, cannot be granted a share so that he may come and rely on it, since he cannot come to the cooked dish; if so, he cannot come and rely on it and say that it is merely like one who completes and continues. And there would be no need to say "up to the techum Shabbos" to exclude, were it not coming to exclude one who is outside the techum, even though he can come within his techum by means of an eruv. And this is the reason: that presumably the intention of the one who sets it aside was not on him. And if so, where he specified explicitly, even for one who is outside his techum and can also come within his techum, he can certainly grant him a share, and this is the main view'.
> Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed whether a person may intend and make an eruv for someone who is outside the techum of the city but can reach the city because he made an eruv techumin. In the next halacha we will see what the halacha is in this matter, and what we learn from this regarding a person who makes an eruv tavshilin and leaves his home for another city.
Notes:
1 Beitzah 16b ↩
2 Shu"t, vol. 3, siman 265 ↩
3 8b in the pages of the Rif ↩
4 Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah, ch. 2, se'if 10 ↩
[16] (Halacha 1094)
In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim disagreed regarding making an eruv for someone who is outside the techum of the city, but is able to come to the city by means of an eruv techumin that he made.
Question: How is it ruled according to halacha?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1: 'And anyone who is within the techum of the city fulfills the requirement through it'.
And the Olas Shabbos wrote2: '"And anyone who is within the techum," etc. — meaning, even without specification. But one who is outside the techum of the city does not fulfill the requirement through it, even if he specified explicitly. And so wrote the Ran: it stands to reason that it is not proper that one should make an eruv for the whole world. And so appears to be the view of the Rav, since he wrote regarding one who is able to come that he fulfills the requirement when he stipulated explicitly regarding him — implying that one outside the techum does not fulfill the requirement even if he stipulated explicitly regarding him'.
> If so, as for the halacha, the Mechaber wrote that the eruv tavshilin is for those who are within the techum of the city, and that it will not be effective for one who is outside the techum. However, it is not explained in his words what the law is regarding one who is outside the techum and made an eruv techumin so that he is able to come to the city.
However, the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'But one who is outside the techum does not fulfill the requirement through it, even if he set aside an eruv techumin and is able to come here, unless the one who set it aside stipulated explicitly regarding him'.
And the Magen Avraham explained3: '"Stipulated regarding him" — and he set aside an eruv techumin (Yam Shel Shlomo)'.
[And note what is written in the Shulchan Gavoah4, from whose words it appears that he explains that the Mechaber agrees with the words of the Rema: '"And anyone," etc. — there: "And how far? Rav Nechumah bar Zecharyah said in the name of Abaye: up to the Shabbos techum." And Rashi explained: up to the Shabbos techum, and regarding those standing outside the techum, the one setting it aside did not have them in mind and it did not occur to him to remember them. And it is implied from his words that if he specified explicitly that he is making the eruv also for those who are outside the techum, it is effective, as the author of the Mappah wrote shortly afterward in the name of the Maggid; and so is the primary view, even though the Ran z"l disagrees, and our Rabbeinu cited him in the Beis Yosef — for it is a Rabbinic matter, and any slight distinguishing sign suffices'].
These are the words of the Alter Rebbe5: 'And even one who is outside the city, if he is within the techum — since he is able to come to the city on Yom Tov, he is included among the residents of the city and fulfills the requirement through this eruv, in the manner that was explained. But one who is outside the techum of the city — even though he set aside an eruv techumin so that he is able to come into the city on Yom Tov — nevertheless, since he resides outside the techum, presumably it was not at all the intention of the one making the eruv to include him in his eruv, because presumably he has in mind only those who are within his techum. And anyone whom the one making the eruv does not intend to include in his eruv does not fulfill the requirement through it, even b'dieved, for the eruv belongs to the one making it. But if the one making the eruv stipulated explicitly that this person who resides outside the techum should also fulfill the requirement through the eruv, he fulfills the requirement through it (in the manner explained above), if he set aside an eruv techumin'.
> If so, one who sets aside an eruv for the entire city simply intends the people who are within the city; but if he explicitly intended also people who are outside the techum of the city, yet are able to come to the city since they made an eruv techumin, they fulfill the requirement. However, people who are so far from the city that an eruv techumin will not enable them to reach the city will not be helped by the eruv tavshilin that was made in the city.
Question: What is the law regarding a person who made an eruv tavshilin, but left the city, and is now not in the city where the eruv tavshilin that he made is located?
Answer: We saw in the previous halacha two explanations for the reason that a person cannot make an eruv for one who lives outside his city: the Ran wrote 'that it is not proper that one should make an eruv for the whole world', whereas regarding the words of the Rashba, the Maharshal explained: 'Since he cannot come to the cooked dish, if so he cannot come and rely on it and say that it is merely like continuing to complete'.
And the Sfas Emes wrote6 that the words of the Ran — that were it not for the reason that it is not proper that one should make it for the whole world, in principle one could make it even for someone who is not near the eruv — fit with reason, for 'what does it matter that he cannot come now? Nevertheless, it is as if he himself set aside an eruv tavshilin on Erev Yom Tov and afterward went away; for we do not find that it would be forbidden to cook in another place when his eruv tavshilin is not in that place. But the Rashba in the Avodas HaKodesh, and likewise the Shulchan Aruch, wrote that specifically for one who is permitted to come here, having set aside an eruv techumin, it is effective for him when one specifies that he is setting it aside on their behalf, but otherwise it is not effective. And according to this, it requires further study what the law is regarding one who set aside an eruv tavshilin and went to another place'.
> If so, the Sfas Emes wrote that we do not find that it would be forbidden to cook in another place when his eruv tavshilin is not in that place; but he wrote that seemingly, according to the view of the Rashba, he would not be able to rely on his eruv. And in practice he was in doubt regarding this law.
However, the Shevet HaLevi wrote7 that one should not learn from the words of the Rashba, who spoke about the leading rav of the city who acquires on behalf of others, to the law of one who leaves the place in which he set aside his eruv. These are his words: 'Nevertheless, it still appears in my humble opinion that our case is not similar to the case of the Rashba and the Maharshal, for it can be said that this is a deficiency in the law of zechiyah — that one cannot acquire on behalf of someone who cannot come to the cooked dish. But regarding one who already set it aside for himself properly, only afterward he went to another city — in any case he himself began to cook on Erev Yom Tov and to prepare for Shabbos — that his eruv should thereby be nullified since he cannot come to the cooked dish, this we have not yet heard from the words of the Rashba. Especially since in most such cases the members of the household remain, and only he goes to another place; if so, they can come to the cooked dish. And likewise, if after setting it aside he changed his mind and decided to leave the place, then at the time of setting aside the eruv tavshilin the enactment of Chazal was fulfilled properly, and the eruv tavshilin is certainly effective. However, if from the outset he knew that he would not be here and would not be able to come, there is some room for doubt, along the lines of what the Sfas Emes wrote there. And since in any case the position of the Rashba is a dispute among the Rishonim — for Rashi and the Ran do not hold so, and the Maggid Mishneh also had reservations — if so, it is a doubt involving a dispute in a Rabbinic matter. And although the Shulchan Aruch inclined to be stringent, nevertheless there is a difference between the case of the Rashba and our case, as mentioned above; and also the Sfas Emes concluded only with "this requires further study" regarding the law. Therefore my heart inclines to be lenient, at least b'dieved, but l'chatchilah to be stringent in this ..'.
> If so, we have seen that the eruv tavshilin must be in the place where the one making the eruv is staying for the Yom Tov8, [but b'dieved, when he made an eruv in one place and left for another place, some have written that he may rely on the eruv, especially if the eruv is also for the members of the household and they remained at home].
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 527, se'if 8 ↩
2 There, se'if katan 7 ↩
3 There, se'if katan 9 ↩
4 There, se'if katan 14 ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch, there, se'if 15 ↩
6 Beitzah 16b ↩
7 Vol. 8, siman 122 ↩
8 And note also the words of the Alter Rebbe there, siman 527, se'if 25: 'But l'chatchilah, the bread and the cooked dish must be *kept in his possession* until after he has prepared all the needs of Shabbos ..' ↩
From the 'Shone Halacha' project - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (quiet) group: 'Shone Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group