## Mishneh Torah, Eruvin Chapter 5

###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:1
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:1)

אַנְּשֵׁי מָבוֹי שֶׁהָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶן שִׁתּוּף בְּמַאֲכָל אֶחָד לְעִנְיַן סְחוֹרָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּנוּ יַיִן בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת אוֹ שֶׁמֶן אוֹ דְּבַשׁ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵינָן צְרִיכִין שִׁתּוּף אַחֵר לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת אֶלָּא סוֹמְכִין עַל שִׁתּוּף שֶׁל סְחוֹרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמִּין שֶׁהֵן שֻׁתָּפִין בּוֹ מִין אֶחָד וּבִכְלִי אֶחָד. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֻׁתָּף לָזֶה בְּיַיִן וּלְאַחֵר בְּשֶׁמֶן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַכּל יַיִן וְהָיָה בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין שִׁתּוּף אַחֵר לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane join in a business partnership with regard to a particular food - i.e., they have bought wine, oil, honey, or the like [for sale]:¹ established by the inhabitants of a lane is mentioned because it can be established with other types of food besides bread. In contrast, an *eruv* for a courtyard may be established only with bread (Chapter 1, Halachah 8). The Rashba (as quoted by the *Maggid Mishneh*) states that the same principle would apply if the inhabitants of a courtyard established a business partnership for the sale of bread. They need not establish another *shituf* for the sake [of carrying on] the Sabbath. Instead, they may rely on the partnership they have established for business reasons.
[When does this leniency apply?] When their business partnership involves one type of produce, and [this produce] is stored in a single container. But if their partnership is such that one possesses wine and the other oil,² (*Orach Chayim* 366) states that even if the partnership involves several types of produce, as long as it is stored in a single container, the inhabitants may rely on it for the sake of the Sabbath. The Ramah (*Orach Chayim* 386:3) quotes this ruling. or they both possess wine but hold it in two different containers, they are required to establish another *shituf* for the sake of the Sabbath.

footnotes:
¹ A shituf
² The Tur


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:2
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:2)

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁמֶן קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ בָּטַל הַשִּׁתּוּף. שֶׁהֲרֵי גִּלָּה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָן כֻּלָּן כְּשֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁאֵין מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה. אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁרָגִיל לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף. בְּנֵי מָבוֹי נִכְנָסִין לְבֵיתוֹ וְנוֹטְלִין מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁתּוּף בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. וְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף כְּלָל עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
If one of the inhabitants of a lane asks another for wine or oil before the Sabbath, and the latter refuses to give it to him, the *shituf* is nullified.³ 68a. In his commentary on that passage, Rashi explains that this refers to the food set aside for the *shituf*. If the person asks for some of this food and it is not given to him, the *eruv* is nullified.
Although this does not appear to be the Rambam's intent, the *Kessef Mishneh* explains that his words can be interpreted in this manner. [And in the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 366:5), Rav Yosef Karo rules according to his explanation in the *Kessef Mishneh*]. The Ra'avad goes further and explains that this law applies only when one person has granted others a share in his produce for the purpose of establishing a *shituf*. If, afterwards, he refuses to allow one of the members of the lane to take from the *shituf*, the *shituf* is nullified. [The rationale is that this individual] revealed that his intent was that they are not all to be considered partners who do not object to each other's [use of the combined resources].
When one of the inhabitants of a lane who usually participates in a *shituf* fails to do so,⁴. the inhabitants of the lane may enter his home and take [his share for] the *shituf* against his will. If one of the inhabitants of a lane refuses⁵. to join with the others in the *shituf*, he may be compelled to do so.⁶. Nevertheless, in contrast to the previous law, the matter may not be dealt with by the inhabitants of the lane themselves (*Maggid Mishneh*). This ruling is quoted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 367:1).
The *Noda BiY'hudah* (Vol. II, *Choshen Mishpat*, Responsum 39) points to *Hilchot Sh'chenim* 5:12 (quoted in the *Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat* 162:1), which appears to contradict this interpretation, for it states that the members of the lane may compel each other to build a pole or a beam for a courtyard. The *Noda BiY'hudah* explains, however, that there is a difference between the structure of a courtyard (i.e., the pole or the beam) and participation in an *eruv*.

footnotes:
³ The Rambam's ruling is based on Eruvin
⁴ With the intent of nullifying the shituf
⁵ I.e., in contrast to the previous law, this person was not a regular participant in the shituf
⁶ I.e., the communal court may compel him to join the shituf


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:3
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:3)

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ אוֹצָר שֶׁל יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁמֶן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה מְזַכֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ מְעַט לְכָל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף בּוֹ וּמְעָרֵב בּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִישׁוֹ וְלֹא יִחֲדוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא מְעֹרָב בָּאוֹצָר הֲרֵי זֶה שִׁתּוּף:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When one of the inhabitants of a lane owns a storeroom of wine, oil, or the like, he may grant a small share to all the inhabitants of the lane and establish a *shituf* on their behalf. The *shituf* is acceptable even though he did not separate or designate [the wine he granted them, but rather left it] mixed together [with the remainder] in the storeroom.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:4
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:4)

חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פְּתָחִים לִשְׁנֵי מְבוֹאוֹת אִם נִשְׁתַּתְּפָה עִם אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּלְבַד נֶאֶסְרָה בַּמָּבוֹי הַשֵּׁנִי וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה וּמַכְנִיסָה בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם זִכָּה אֶחָד בְּשִׁתּוּף לְכָל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי וְשִׁתֵּף עֲלֵיהֶן צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ לְאַנְשֵׁי הֶחָצֵר זוֹ. שֶׁאֵינָן מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן שֶׁאֵינָהּ זְכוּת לָהֶן שֶׁמָּא בַּמָּבוֹי הַשֵּׁנִי רוֹצִים לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף וְלֹא בָּזֶה:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[When the inhabitants of] a courtyard that has two entrances, each leading to a different lane, establish a *shituf* with one of [the lanes] and not the other,⁷ with the inhabitants of both lanes, if they desire. If they chose this option, they may bring articles to and from both lanes. The *Maggid Mishneh* maintains that the Rambam accepts this view, as well.
There are opinions (see Rabbenu Yehonatan) that maintain that Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi differs with this view, and maintains that in such a situation, the inhabitants of the courtyard may join in a *shituf* with the inhabitants of only one lane. Some maintain that the Rambam also accepts this view. This is surely the opinion of the Ra'avad, who objects to the Rambam's ruling here.
This interpretation cannot be justified in light of the Rambam's ruling in Halachah 7. Accordingly, *Merkevet HaMishneh* offers a different interpretation of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, as is explained in the following note. [they] are forbidden to bring articles to and from the second lane.
Therefore, if a person [sets aside food for a *shituf*], grants a portion to all the inhabitants of the lane, and establishes a *shituf* on their behalf, he must notify the inhabitants of that courtyard. For they must make a conscious decision to join the *shituf*, since this is not [necessarily] to their benefit,⁸ for them, for these deeds are to their benefit, and a person may grant a colleague benefit without the latter's knowledge."
The rationale behind that ruling is that it is surely to the benefit of the inhabitants of a courtyard to be able to bring articles to and from areas outside their courtyard. In this instance, however, the establishment of a *shituf* is not necessarily to the benefit of the inhabitants of that courtyard, and they must therefore be notified beforehand.
The *Maggid Mishneh* explains that the *shituf* is not necessarily to their benefit, because they have another alternative to transfer articles to and from the courtyard from outside. Hence, it is possible that the inhabitants of the courtyard do not desire to join in the *shituf* with this lane, lest doing so increase the amount of human traffic in their courtyard.
According to Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's view, the question facing the inhabitants of this courtyard is: If they do not join in a *shituf* with either of the lanes, they are allowed to transfer articles left in the courtyard at the commencement of the Sabbath to and from both the lanes. Should they join in a *shituf* with only one of the lanes, although their opportunities are greatly increased with regard to transferring articles to and from the lane with which they established the *shituf*, they lose the opportunity to transfer articles to and from the other lane. Perhaps they would desire to maintain the situation as it was originally rather than forfeit this opportunity. because it is possible that they desire to join in a *shituf* with [the inhabitants of] the other lane, and not with this one.

footnotes:
⁷ According to most authorities, the inhabitants of such a courtyard have the right to establish a shituf
⁸ In Chapter 1, Halachah 20, the Rambam states: "A person need not inform the inhabitants of a lane or a courtyard that he has granted them [a portion of food] and established an eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:5
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:5)

אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעָרֶבֶת לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֶאֱסרוֹ עַל שְׁכֵנָיו. אֲבָל אִם אוֹסֵר אֵינָהּ מְעָרֶבֶת עָלָיו וְלֹא מִשְׁתַּתֶּפֶת עָלָיו אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. כֵּיצַד אוֹסֵר. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר אֵינִי מְעָרֵב עִמָּכֶם אוֹ אֵינִי מִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּכֶם:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
A person's wife may participate in an *eruv* on his behalf without his knowledge, provided he does not [intend to cause] his neighbors to be forbidden [to carry].⁹ 80a (the source for this halachah) parallels that of Rabbenu Chanan'el. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others offer a directly opposite interpretation of that passage. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 367:1) follows the latter view.
The Ra'avad's objection to the Rambam's ruling revolves around the interpretation of the passage cited above, which begins:
A [gentile] officer lived in Rabbi Zeira's neighborhood. [The Jews] offered to rent his domain on the Sabbath, but he refused.
They came to Rabbi Zeira and asked whether they could rent it from his wife. He told them, "...A person's wife may establish an *eruv* on his behalf without his knowledge."
According to the Rambam, the law Rabbi Zeira cites as support is not entirely analogous to the situation regarding which he was asked. A Jew's wife may establish an *eruv* without his knowledge, but not against his will. A gentile's wife, by contrast, may rent out his domain even when he has already refused (*Sefer HaKovetz*). If he does [intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry], however, she may not join an *eruv* on his behalf, nor may she join a *shituf* on his behalf unless he consents.
What is meant by "[intend to cause] them to be forbidden [to carry]"? That he says, "I will not join in an *eruv* or a *shituf* with them."

footnotes:
⁹ In this ruling, the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:6
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:6)

נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר זוֹ עִם אֶחָד מִשְׁנִי הַמְּבוֹאוֹת אִם בְּמִין אֶחָד נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ אֲפִלּוּ כָּלָה אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה שִׁתּוּף אַחֵר וּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶן וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה. וְאִם בִּשְׁנֵי מִינִין נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ וְנִתְמַעֵט הָאֹכֶל מוֹסִיף וּמְזַכֶּה וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָן. וְאִם כָּלוּ מְזַכֶּה לָהֶם וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם. נִתְוַסְּפוּ שְׁכֵנִים בֶּחָצֵר זוֹ מְזַכֶּה לָהֶם וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rules apply when a courtyard opens up to two lanes and] the inhabitants of the courtyard have established a *shituf* with [the inhabitants of] one of the lanes: If they had originally established the *shituf* with one type of produce, even if the produce in the *shituf* was consumed entirely, one may establish a second *shituf* and grant them a portion; there is no need to inform them a second time.¹⁰ previously, we assume that they desire to continue the arrangement (*Levush, Orach Chayim* 368:1).
If they have established the *shituf* with two types¹¹ 80b) explains that this refers to establishing the second *shituf* with a different type of produce, rather than establishing the first *eruv* with two types of produce. His approach is cited by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 368:1). of produce,¹² can be established using two types of produce. The Ra'avad objects both there and here. and the amount of food was reduced [from the minimum required],¹³ one may add to it and grant the others a share; there is no need to inform them. If [the produce] was consumed entirely, one may [establish a second *shituf* and] grant them a portion; it is, however, necessary to inform them.¹⁴ explains that, even according to the Rambam, using two types of produce for a *shituf* is undesirable. Therefore, if the *shituf* must be established anew, it is necessary to check whether the inhabitants of the lane consent.
If the number of inhabitants within the courtyard is increased, one may grant [the newcomers] a portion in the *shituf*, but one must notify them.¹⁵ with the inhabitants of the other lane.

footnotes:
¹⁰ Since they agreed to join in the shituf
¹¹ Rashi (Eruvin
¹² Note Chapter 1, Halachah 11, where the Rambam states that a shituf
¹³ See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
¹⁴ Merkevet HaMishneh
¹⁵ For perhaps they would desire to establish the shituf


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:7
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:7)

נִשְׁתַּתְּפָה חָצֵר זוֹ עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי זֶה מִפֶּתַח זֶה וְעִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי הַשֵּׁנִי מִן הַפֶּתַח הָאַחֵר מֻתֶּרֶת עִם שְׁנֵיהֶן וְהֵן מֻתָּרִין עִמָּהּ וּשְׁנֵי הַמְּבוֹאוֹת אֲסוּרִין זֶה עִם זֶה. לֹא עֵרְבָה עִם אֶחָד מֵהֶם אוֹסֶרֶת עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
If the inhabitants of this courtyard have established a *shituf* with the inhabitants of this lane from one entrance, and have established another *shituf* with the inhabitants of the other lane from the other entrance, they are permitted [to carry to and from] both [of these lanes]¹⁶, and [the inhabitants of] both [lanes] are permitted [to carry within the courtyard]. [The inhabitants of] both lanes are, however, forbidden [to carry] from one [lane] to the other.¹⁷.
If [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not established a *shituf* with either of them, they cause [the inhabitants of] both to be forbidden [to carry].¹⁸, all the inhabitants of the lane are forbidden to carry.

footnotes:
¹⁶ See the notes on Halachah 4.
¹⁷ Unless they join together in a shituf
¹⁸ Since there is a courtyard in their lane that has not joined in the shituf


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:8
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:8)

הָיְתָה חָצֵר זוֹ רְגִילָה בְּפֶתַח אֶחָד וְהַפֶּתַח הַשֵּׁנִי אֵינָהּ רְגִילָה. זֶה שֶׁרְגִילָה לְהִכָּנֵס וְלָצֵאת בּוֹ אוֹסֵר וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. עֵרְבָה עִם מָבוֹי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ הֻתַּר הַמָּבוֹי הָאַחֵר לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעָרֵב עִמָּהּ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually [pass] through one entrance [into one lane], but do not usually [pass] through a second entrance [into another lane]: They cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they usually [pass opens].¹⁹. They do not cause carrying to be forbidden [in the lane to which] the entrance through which they do not usually [pass opens].²⁰.
If [the inhabitants of this courtyard] have established a *shituf* with [only] the lane through which they do not usually [pass], [the inhabitants of] the other lane are allowed [to carry];²¹ for themselves. they do not have to establish a *shituf* with [the inhabitants of this courtyard].

footnotes:
¹⁹ Unless they join in a shituf
²⁰ Even when they do not join in a shituf
²¹ Provided they establish an eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:9
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:9)

עֵרְבוּ בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁהִיא רְגִילָה בּוֹ לְעַצְמָן וְהִיא לֹא עֵרְבָה עִמּוֹ וְלֹא עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי הָאַחֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ וְגַם לֹא עֵרְבוּ בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה בּוֹ. דּוֹחִין אוֹתָהּ אֵצֶל זֶה הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְגִילָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא לֹא עֵרְבָה וְהוּא לֹא עֵרֵב דּוֹחִין אוֹתָהּ אֶצְלוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֶּאֱסֹר עַל מָבוֹי זֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[A leniency is granted in the following situation.] The inhabitants of the lane [through] which [the inhabitants of] this courtyard usually pass established a *shituf* by themselves. [The inhabitants of the courtyard] did not join in this *shituf*, nor have they joined in a *shituf* with the inhabitants of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. The inhabitants of the latter lane [also] did not establish a *shituf* for themselves.
Since [the inhabitants of the courtyard] have not joined in a *shituf* at all, they are considered part of the lane [through] which they do not usually pass. Since both these groups of individuals have not established a *shituf*, they are classed together, so that they will not cause [the inhabitants of] the lane who established the *shituf* to be forbidden [to carry].²² of the lane through which they usually pass would cause carrying to be forbidden in this lane. Nevertheless, since the inhabitants of this courtyard have another alternative, they are considered part of the courtyard through which they do not usually pass. The rationale is that through this decision, one group of people (the inhabitants of the lane who established a *shituf*) benefits (for their *shituf* is considered acceptable), and another group (the inhabitants of the courtyard in question) does not lose (for they are forbidden to carry regardless) [*Eruvin* 49a].

footnotes:
²² Based on the principles stated in the previous halachah, it would seem that the fact that the inhabitants of this courtyard have not joined in the shituf


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:10
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:10)

חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח לְמָבוֹי וּפֶתַח אַחֵר לְבִקְעָה אוֹ לְקַרְפָּף יֶתֶר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם הוֹאִיל וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטֵל מֵחָצֵר לְאוֹתוֹ הַקַּרְפָּף אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ אֶלָּא עַל פֶּתַח שֶׁל מָבוֹי לְפִיכָךְ אוֹסֵר עַל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַקַּרְפָּף בֵּית סָאתַיִם אוֹ פָּחוֹת אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עַל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי שֶׁעַל הַפֶּתַח הַמְיֻחָד לוֹ סוֹמֵךְ הוֹאִיל וּמֻתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכָל הַקַּרְפָּף:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rules apply when] a courtyard has an entrance to a lane and another entrance to a valley or to an area enclosed for purposes other than habitation, which is larger than the area [needed] to sow two *se'ah*:²³ 16:3, this is an area of 5000 square cubits. The Sages forbade carrying in such an area, even when it is surrounded by a proper partition (*loc. cit.*:1-2). Since it is forbidden to transfer articles from the courtyard to that enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely only on the entrance to the lane. Therefore, they cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry] unless they join together with them in a *shituf*.
If, however, the enclosed area is the size of the area [needed] to sow two *se'ah* or less, its presence does not cause the inhabitants of the lane to be forbidden [to carry]. Since carrying is permitted within the entire enclosed area, [the inhabitants of the courtyard] rely on the entrance that is exclusively theirs.²⁴

footnotes:
²³ As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat
²⁴ I.e., we assume that the entrance that is more important to them is the entrance to the enclosed area and not the entrance to the lane. Hence, the fact that they have an entrance to the lane is of no significance.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:11
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:11)

אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִשְׁבֹּת בְּמָבוֹי אַחֵר אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן. וְכֵן אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי שֶׁבָּנָה מַצֵּבָה רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים עַל פִּתְחוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁהֲרֵי הִפְרִישׁ עַצְמוֹ מֵהֶן וְחָלַק רְשׁוּתוֹ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When one of the inhabitants of a lane goes away and spends the Sabbath in another place, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden.²⁵
Similarly, if one of the inhabitants of a lane builds a pillar that is four handbreadths wide [or more] before his entrance, [the fact that he owns a domain in the lane] does not cause carrying to be forbidden. For he has separated himself from [the other inhabitants], and has made his domain a distinct entity.²⁶

footnotes:
²⁵ See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
²⁶ See also Halachah 24 and Chapter 4, Halachah 16.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:12
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:12)

אַנְשֵׁי מָבוֹי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ מִקְצָתָן וְשָׁכְחוּ מִקְצָתָן וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ מְבַטְּלִין רְשׁוּתָן לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ. וְדִינָם לְעִנְיַן בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת כְּדִין אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן אוֹ שְׁנַיִם וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ. וּכְבָר אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל אָדָם עִם אַנְשֵׁי בֵּיתוֹ הַסְּמוּכִים עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד הֵן חֲשׁוּבִין בֵּין לְעֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת בֵּין לְשִׁתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rules apply when] the inhabitants of a lane have joined together in a *shituf*, but several of the inhabitants forgot and did not join: [Those who forgot] should subordinate the ownership of their domain to those who joined in the *shituf*. The laws governing the subordination of the ownership of their domain are the same as the laws governing the subordination of the ownership of a domain when one or more of the inhabitants of a courtyard forgot to join in an *eruv*.²⁷
We have already explained²⁸ that a person and [all] the members of his household who are dependent on him for meals are considered to be a single entity with regard to the establishment of an *eruv* for a courtyard and a *shituf* for a lane.

footnotes:
²⁷ See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-5.
²⁸ Chapter 4, Halachah 1.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:13
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:13)

מָבוֹי שֶׁעֵרְבוּ כָּל חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ כָּל חָצֵר וְחָצֵר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ כֻּלָּן בַּמָּבוֹי. שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִם בְּנֵי חֲצֵרוֹ לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּם נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ וְעַל הַשִּׁתּוּף סוֹמְכִין וְלֹא הִצְרִיכוּ לְעָרֵב בַּחֲצֵרוֹת עִם הַשִּׁתּוּף אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁכֵּחַ לַתִּינוֹקוֹת תּוֹרַת עֵרוּב וַהֲרֵי עֵרְבוּ בַּחֲצֵרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף אֲסוּרִים בַּמָּבוֹי וּמֻתָּרִין כָּל בְּנֵי חָצֵר לְטַלְטֵל בַּחֲצֵרָן שֶׁהַמָּבוֹי לַחֲצֵירוֹת כְּחָצֵר לַבָּתִּים:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of] all the courtyards established *eruvin* for each of the courtyards, and afterwards they all joined in a *shituf* for the lane: When one of the inhabitants of a lane forgot to join in the *eruv* with the other inhabitants of his courtyard, he does not lose any [privileges]. For all of them have joined together in a *shituf*, and it is on the *shituf* that they rely.
The only reason it was required to establish an *eruv* within the courtyards, together with the *shituf*, is so that the children will not forget the law of the *eruv*.²⁹ established within a courtyard will be seen by the children, and they will know that it is only because of this *eruv* that the restrictions against carrying are relaxed. If, however, there is only a *shituf* in the lane, it is unlikely to be noticed by the children, and they will not know about the restrictions established by our Sages (*Eruvin* 73b). (See, however, the notes on the following halachah.) [And in this instance, that requirement has been met,] for *eruvin* were established in the courtyards.
If, however, one of the inhabitants of the lane forgot to join in the *shituf*, carrying is forbidden in the lane.³⁰ requires the participation of all the inhabitants of the lane. The inhabitants of the courtyards, however, may carry in their [respective] courtyards. [When a *shituf* is not established,] the relationship between courtyards and a lane is parallel to that between homes and a courtyard.³¹

footnotes:
²⁹ I.e., an eruv
³⁰ For the shituf
³¹ See Halachah 15.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:14
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:14)

נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַּמָּבוֹי וְשָׁכְחוּ כֻּלָּן לְעָרֵב בָּחֲצֵרוֹת. אִם אֵין מַקְפִּידִין עַל פְּרוּסָתָן סוֹמְכִין עַל הַשִּׁתּוּף בַּשַּׁבָּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין מַתִּירִין לָהֶן דָּבָר זֶה אֶלָּא מִדֹּחַק:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rules apply when the inhabitants of all the courtyards] have joined in a *shituf*, but all have forgotten to establish *eruvin* for their respective courtyards: If they do not stint on sharing their bread,³² - when asked (Ra'avad, *Maggid Mishneh*, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, *Eruvin* 6:8). they may rely on the *shituf* for one Sabbath alone. This leniency is granted, however, only because of the difficulty [of their immediate circumstance].³³ was established with bread, there is no need for *eruvin* within the courtyards, because the children will be aware of the collection of loaves of bread. He maintains that this leniency may be accepted at all times. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 387:1) accepts this view.
The Ramah mentions an even greater leniency. He maintains that we may rely on the *shituf* although *eruvin* were not established, even when the *shituf* was established with wine or other foods. His rationale is that in Talmudic times, the *shituf* was established by one member of each courtyard, who acted on behalf of all the inhabitants. At present, however, all the inhabitants of the lane contribute individually to the *shituf*.
This rationale is not accepted by the later authorities; *Shulchan Aruch HaRav* 387:1 and the *Mishnah Berurah* 387:12 suggest following the opinion of the *Shulchan Aruch*.

footnotes:
³² I.e., if one person will give a colleague bread - other than the bread of the shituf
³³ Rav Moshe HaCohen notes an apparent contradiction between this halachah and Chapter 1, Halachah 19, which states that if a shituf


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:15
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:15)

מָבוֹי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בּוֹ אִם עֵרְבוּ חֲצֵרוֹת עִם הַבָּתִּים אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת כְּכַרְמְלִית. מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֵרְבוּ חֲצֵרוֹת עִם הַבָּתִּים נַעֲשָׂה הַמָּבוֹי כְּאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ פָּתוּחַ לוֹ אֶלָּא בָּתִּים בִּלְבַד בְּלֹא חֲצֵרוֹת. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בְּכֻלָּן. וְאִם לֹא עֵרְבוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַחֲצֵרוֹת מְטַלְטְלִין בְּכֻלָּן כֵּלִים שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּתוֹכוֹ כְּחָצֵר שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ בָּהּ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When *eruvin* have been established between the courtyards and the homes [of a lane], but a *shituf* has not been established, carrying [an article] more than four cubits [within the lane] is forbidden, as [would be the law] within a *carmelit*.
[The rationale is that] since *eruvin* were established between the courtyards and the homes, the lane is considered as though it opened only to homes, and not to courtyards. Therefore, we are not allowed to carry within its area at all.³⁴ 17:8; Commentary on the Mishnah (*Eruvin* 6:8)] that a lane must have several courtyards and several houses open to it.
The Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it follows the opinion of Rav (*Shabbat* 131a). Nevertheless, the halachah ultimately follows the view of Shmuel (*Eruvin* 74a), who maintains that the lane and the courtyards are considered to be a single entity. According to this view, when a *shituf* has not been established, there is no difference whether or not *eruvin* have been established within the courtyards. *Shulchan Aruch HaRav* 388:1 and the *Mishnah Berurah* 388:4 rule according to this view.
The *Mishnah Berurah* adds that the stringency suggested by the Rambam applies only when the open side of the lane is adjusted with a pole or a beam. If, however, the open side is adjusted with a frame of an entrance, even the Rambam would agree that one is permitted to carry articles that were left in the lane at the beginning of the Sabbath.
If the inhabitants of the courtyards have not established *eruvin*, they may carry articles left in the [lane] at the commencement of the Sabbath throughout its entire area, as is the law regarding a courtyard in which an *eruv* was not established.³⁵

footnotes:
³⁴ The Rambam's ruling is based on his conception [Hilchot Shabbat
³⁵ See Chapter 3, Halachot 18-19.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:16
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:16)

עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ צְדוֹקִי הַשָּׁרוּי בְּחָצֵר שֶׁבַּמָּבוֹי דִּינוֹ עִם בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי כְּדִינוֹ עִם בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁשּׂוֹכְרִים מִן הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ מֵאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ רְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁבַּמָּבוֹי. אוֹ מְבַטֵּל לָהֶן הַצְּדוֹקִי. וְאִם הָיָה בַּמָּבוֹי עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶחָד אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שִׁתּוּף. וְדִין יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶחָד וְדִין רַבִּים שֶׁהֵן סוֹמְכִין עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד דִּין אֶחָד הוּא:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
The laws that the inhabitants of a lane must follow with regard to a gentile³⁶ or a Sadducee³⁷ who dwells in one of the courtyards of a lane are the same as must be followed by the inhabitants of the courtyard. They must rent the gentile's domain within the courtyard from him or from one of the members of his household, and the Sadducee must subordinate the ownership of his domain.
If [only] one Jew and a gentile were dwelling in the lane, a *shituf* is not necessary.³⁸ The same laws apply when many individuals [are members of one household and] rely on that household for their substance [and these individuals share a lane with a gentile].³⁹

footnotes:
³⁶ See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.
³⁷ See Chapter 2, Halachah 16.
³⁸ See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.
³⁹ See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:17
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:17)

עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהָיָה דָּר בַּמָּבוֹי אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בַּחֲצֵרוֹ פֶּתַח אֶחָד לַבִּקְעָה אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עַל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה פֶּתַח קָטָן אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹצִיא גְּמַלִּים וּקְרוֹנוֹת דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח שֶׁבַּמָּבוֹי אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ אֶלָּא עַל פֶּתַח הַמְיֻחָד לוֹ שֶׁהוּא לַבִּקְעָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה פָּתוּחַ לְקַרְפָּף שֶׁהוּא יֶתֶר עַל בֵּית סָאתַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּפָתוּחַ לַבִּקְעָה וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן. הָיָה בֵּית סָאתַיִם אוֹ פָּחוֹת אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וְאוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכְּרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When a gentile living in a lane has an opening⁴⁰ (*Orach Chayim* 389:1) that a window is sufficient. from his courtyard to a valley, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden within the lane [although his courtyard also opens to the lane].⁴¹ Even if this entrance is small - merely four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] - and the gentile leads his camels and his wagons out through the other entrance, his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. For he is concerned only with the entrance that is distinctly his own - i.e., [the one leading to] the valley.
Similarly, if he has an entrance leading to an area that was enclosed for purposes other than habitation, [and that entrance] is larger than the area needed to sow two *se'ah* [of grain], it is regarded like an entrance to a valley, and his presence does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden. If, however, the enclosed area was the size needed to sow two *se'ah* of grain or less, [the gentile] is not concerned with [this area],⁴² and his presence causes [carrying] to be forbidden,⁴³ unless [his domain] is rented from him.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ We have translated the Hebrew פתח as "opening," rather than "entrance," in light of the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch
⁴¹ As reflected by Halachah 10, when a person has one entrance that is semi-private and another that is more public, the entrance that is more private is considered to be the one he will prefer. Since the gentile has an alternative of this nature, his presence does not cause carrying to be forbidden within the lane.
⁴² Because of its small size.
⁴³ Significantly, these laws are directly opposite to those applying to a Jew, as mentioned in Halachah 10.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:18
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:18)

מָבוֹי שֶׁצִּדּוֹ אֶחָד עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְצִדּוֹ אֶחָד יִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְהָיוּ חַלּוֹנוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת מֵחָצֵר לֶחָצֵר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעֵרְבוּ כֻּלָּן דֶּרֶךְ חַלּוֹנוֹת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ כְּאַנְשֵׁי בַּיִת אֶחָד וּמֻתָּרִין לְהוֹצִיא וּלְהַכְנִיס דֶּרֶךְ חַלּוֹנוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּמָּבוֹי דֶּרֶךְ פְּתָחִים עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכְּרוּ מִן הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. שֶׁאֵין נַעֲשִׂים כְּיָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rule applies when] there is a lane that has gentiles living [in the courtyards] on one side and Jews living [in the courtyards] on the other side, and there are windows that open from each of the courtyards in which the Jews [live] to the other: Although they established *eruvin* via the windows, and thus are joined together as the members of a single household - and are, therefore, permitted to transfer [articles] to and from [one courtyard to another] via the windows - they are, nevertheless, forbidden to use the lane via its entrances⁴⁴ unless they rent the domains from the gentiles. For the principle that [because of an *eruv*] the many become considered a single entity does not apply when there are gentiles involved.⁴⁵

footnotes:
⁴⁴ I.e., one might think that since they are joined together as a single entity, the leniency mentioned in the final clause of Halachah 16 would apply. This, however, is not the case, as the Rambam proceeds to state.
⁴⁵ See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:19
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:19)

כֵּיצַד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בַּמְּדִינָה. כָּל חָצֵר וְחָצֵר מְעָרֶבֶת לְעַצְמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁכֵּחַ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין כָּל אַנְשֵׁי הַמְּדִינָה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּתְּפִין בַּמָּבוֹי. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמְּדִינָה קִנְיַן יָחִיד אֲפִלּוּ נַעֲשֵׂית שֶׁל רַבִּים מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין כֻּלָּן שִׁתּוּף אֶחָד וִיטַלְטְלוּ בְּכָל הַמְּדִינָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל רַבִּים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח אֶחָד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין כֻּלָּן שִׁתּוּף אֶחָד:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
How is a *shituf* established in a city?⁴⁶). Other authorities - and these are the views accepted by many today - accept the possibility of a city's being encompassed by an *eruv* consisting of wires or string that forms an imaginary wall. The acceptability of such an enclosure is discussed in *Hilchot Shabbat* 16:16 and notes. Every courtyard should establish an *eruv* for itself, so that the children will not forget [the laws of *eruvin*]. Afterwards, all the inhabitants of the city join together in a *shituf* in the same way as a *shituf* is established in a lane.
If the city had once been the property of a single individual, even if later it became the property of many individuals, it is possible for all [the inhabitants] to join in a single *shituf* and [be permitted] to carry throughout the entire city.⁴⁷. Similarly, although a city is owned by many, if it has only one entrance, all [the inhabitants] may join in a single *shituf*.⁴⁸ 292:5).

footnotes:
⁴⁶ This refers to a city surrounded by a wall that has gates, for in this way it is a private domain according to the Torah (Maggid Mishneh
⁴⁷ I.e., in contrast to the situation mentioned in the following halachah, there is no need to set a certain area outside the eruv
⁴⁸ Since the city has only one entrance, it does not resemble a public domain, and the chance that people will develop a misconception is far less. Hence, no additional measure is necessary (Mishnah Berurah


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:20
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:20)

אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה שֶׁל רַבִּים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פְּתָחִים שֶׁהָעָם נִכְנָסִין בָּזֶה וְיוֹצְאִין בָּזֶה אֲפִלּוּ נַעֲשֵׂית שֶׁל יָחִיד אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶת כֻּלָּהּ אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין מִמֶּנָּה מָקוֹם אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ בַּיִת אֶחָד בְּחָצֵר אַחַת וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין הַשְּׁאָר. וְיִהְיוּ אֵלּוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּתְּפִין כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין בְּכָל הַמְּדִינָה חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁשִּׁיְּרוּ. וְיִהְיוּ אוֹתָן הַנִּשְׁאָרִים מֻתָּרִין בִּמְקוֹמָן בַּשִּׁתּוּף שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לְעַצְמָן אִם הָיוּ הַנִּשְׁאָרִים רַבִּים. וַאֲסוּרִין לְטַלְטֵל בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמְּדִינָה:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
If, by contrast, [a city] was originally built as the property of many individuals,⁴⁹ 59a,b. The Rashba and the Ritba offer similar, but slightly different interpretations of the passage. Significantly, Rashi interprets the Hebrew עיר של רבים as referring to a city populated by more than 600,000. His view is cited in *Shulchan Aruch HaRav* 392:1 and the *Mishnah Berurah* 392:7 as an explanation for the reason that this law is not practiced at present. and it has two openings used for entrance and egress, the entire [city] may not be included in the *eruv*. [This applies even if the city later] becomes the private property of one individual. Instead, one area - even one house in one courtyard - is set aside,⁵⁰ and a *shituf* is established in the remainder [of the city].
All the individuals who participate in the *shituf* are permitted [to carry] throughout the entire city with the exception of the place that was set aside. If there are many people [living in] the place [that was set aside], they are permitted to carry in that place if they make a *shituf* for themselves. They are, however, forbidden to carry throughout the remainder of the city.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Eruvin
⁵⁰ For the reasons explained in the following halachah.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:21
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:21)

וְדָבָר זֶה מִשּׁוּם הֶכֵּר הוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ שֶׁהָעֵרוּב הִתִּיר לָהֶן לְטַלְטֵל בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ שֶׁרַבִּים בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ לְעַצְמָן:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
This was instituted to make a distinction, so that [the inhabitants know that the *eruv* made carrying possible in this large city through which many people pass.⁵¹ [For they will see] the place that was set aside, which did not join in the *shituf*, in which carrying is forbidden. [Each group of individuals, the inhabitants of the city and the inhabitants of the area that was set aside] will have their separate [area].

footnotes:
⁵¹ Since the city resembles a public domain, allowing people to carry might create a misconception. Unless a portion of the city were set aside, it is possible that some might entirely lose awareness of the prohibition against carrying.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:22
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:22)

מְדִינָה שֶׁל רַבִּים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח אֶחָד וְסֻלָּם בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְעָרְבִין אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁיּוּר שֶׁאֵין הַסֻּלָּם שֶׁבַּחוֹמָה חָשׁוּב כְּפֶתַח. הַבָּתִּים שֶׁמַּנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ שִׁיּוּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן פְּתוּחִין לָעִיר אֶלָּא אֲחוֹרֵיהֶן לָעִיר וּפְנֵיהֶם לַחוּץ עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ שִׁיּוּר וּמְעָרְבִין אֶת הַשְּׁאָר:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When a city belonging to many individuals has one entrance and has a ladder⁵² 392:2). [that could be used to enter or depart] at another place [in its wall], it [is possible to include] the entire [city] in the *eruv*; no portion need be set aside. For a ladder in the wall is not considered to be an entrance.⁵³
The houses that are set aside [and are not included in the *shituf*] need not face the city. Even if they face the outside area, and their back is towards the city, they may be [designated as the houses that are] set aside, and then an *eruv* may be established throughout the remainder [of the city].⁵⁴ of the city. (See *Eruvin* 60a.)

footnotes:
⁵² Or even several ladders (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim
⁵³ Although at times a ladder is considered to be an entrance (e.g., Chapter 3, Halachah 2), this instance is judged by different criteria.
⁵⁴ These individuals are less likely to be upset about being excluded from the eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:23
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:23)

הַמְזַכֶּה בְּשִׁתּוּף לִבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה. אִם עֵרְבוּ כֻּלָּן עֵרוּב אֶחָד אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָן שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לָהֶן. וְדִין מִי שֶׁשָּׁכַח וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם בְּנֵי הַמְּדִינָה אוֹ מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִשְׁבֹּת בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת אוֹ עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהָיָה עִמָּהֶן בַּמְּדִינָה דִּין הַכּל כְּדִינָם בְּחָצֵר וּמָבוֹי:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When a person grants a portion in the *shituf* to all the inhabitants of a city,⁵⁵ if all the inhabitants join in the same *shituf*⁵⁶ (cited also by the *Mishnah Berurah* 392:34) notes that the Rambam's wording implies that if only a portion of the inhabitants of a city join in the *shituf*, we do not automatically assume that a person would prefer to be part of them. Perhaps he would prefer to be associated with those who were not included. he is not required to inform them, for [being included] is to their advantage.
The laws that apply to a person who forgot and did not join in a *shituf* with the inhabitants of a city,⁵⁷ to one who spent the Sabbath in another city,⁵⁸ or to a situation in which gentiles are present⁵⁹ in the city are the same as those that apply in a courtyard and in a lane.⁶⁰ are made in cities where Jews and gentiles live together, the gentiles' domains are usually rented through an arrangement negotiated with the municipal authorities. Since these authorities have a certain dimension of control over all land under their jurisdiction, and can enter all homes with a court order, they are entitled to rent the domain for all the gentiles living in this area.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.
⁵⁶ The Maggid Mishneh
⁵⁷ See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
⁵⁸ See Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
⁵⁹ See Chapter 2, Halachah 9; Chapter 4, Halachah 13; and Halachah 16 of the present chapter.
⁶⁰ Today, when eruvin


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:24
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 5:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/5:24)

מְדִינָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ כָּל יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ חוּץ מִמָּבוֹי אֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר עַל כֻּלָּן. וְאִם בָּנוּ מַצֵּבָה עַל פֶּתַח הַמָּבוֹי אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מְעָרְבִין מְדִינָה לַחֲצָאִין אֶלָּא אוֹ כֻּלָּהּ אוֹ מָבוֹי מָבוֹי. וּבוֹנֶה כָּל מָבוֹי וּמָבוֹי מַצֵּבָה עַל פִּתְחוֹ אִם רָצָה לַחֲלֹק רְשׁוּתוֹ מֵהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֶאֱסֹר עַל שְׁאָר הַמְּבוֹאוֹת:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When all the inhabitants of a city with the exception of the inhabitants of a single lane join together in a *shituf*, [the presence of these individuals] causes [carrying] to be forbidden for all. [The inhabitants] should⁶¹ explains that the Rambam's wording implies that the inhabitants must either join in the *shituf* or erect a pillar. build a pillar⁶² at the entrance to the lane, so that [carrying] is not forbidden.
For this reason, a *shituf* is not established in half a city.⁶³ (in his gloss on Halachah 19) and the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 392:5) interpret this to be referring to a city that is surrounded by a wall with gates.
The Rambam's intent is interpreted to mean that if the pillar is erected in the middle of the public domain, it is not sufficient to divide one part of the city from the other.
If the city is not surrounded by a wall, it is not a private domain according to Torah law. It is possible to enclose a portion by using a Halachic conception of an enclosure, a *tzurat hapetach*, "a frame of an entrance," but the entire city may not be enclosed in this manner. Either the entire city joins in the *shituf* or [separate *shitufim* are made], each lane for itself. Each lane should build a pillar at its entrance to keep its domain distinct from the others, so that it will not cause [the inhabitants of] the other lanes to be forbidden [to carry].

footnotes:
⁶¹ Merkevet HaMishneh
⁶² See Chapter 4, Halachah 16; and Halachah 11 of the present chapter.
⁶³ The Maggid Mishneh