## Mishneh Torah, Eruvin Chapter 6

###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:1
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:1)

מִי שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הַמְּדִינָה בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְהִנִּיחַ מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת רָחוֹק מִן הַמְּדִינָה בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְקָבַע שְׁבִיתָתוֹ שָׁם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר לַמְּדִינָה וְלָן בְּבֵיתוֹ נֶחְשָׁב אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ שָׁבַת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִנִּיחַ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעֻדּוֹת. וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When a person leaves a city on Friday afternoon and deposits food for two meals at a distance from the city,¹ by actually going on Friday afternoon to the location one desires to establish as one's place for the Sabbath. The possibility of depositing food was instituted by our Sages to expedite the process of establishing an *eruv t'chumin*, by allowing a person to have an agent deposit food for him. but within its Sabbath limits,² and by doing so establishes this as his place for the Sabbath, it is considered as if his base for the Sabbath is the place where he deposited the food for two meals, even if he returns to the city [before the commencement of the Sabbath] and spends the night in his home. This is called an *eruv t'chumin*.³ questions why two seemingly separate concepts, *eruv chatzerot* and *eruv t'chumin*, are considered to be part of the same mitzvah and are described together. He explains that since both are Rabbinic ordinances that involve placing food in a specific place so that the place will be considered to be one's base for the Sabbath, they can be considered to be a single mitzvah.

footnotes:
¹ Note Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which states that one may establish an eruv t'chumin
² See Halachah 5 regarding both these factors.
³ In his introduction to these halachot, the Maggid Mishneh


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

וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ לְמָחָר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְהַלֵּךְ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ לְמָחָר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדִינָה אֵינוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמְּדִינָה אֶלָּא עַד סוֹף מִדָּתוֹ. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמְּדִינָה מֻבְלַעַת בְּתוֹךְ מִדָּתוֹ תֵּחָשֵׁב הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּהּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְיַשְׁלִים מִדָּתוֹ חוּצָה לָהּ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
On the following day, the person may walk two thousand cubits⁴ and 57.6 centimeters according to the *Chazon Ish*. from [the place of] his *eruv* in all directions.⁵ 27:1.) Since the place where the person's *eruv* is located is considered his base for the Sabbath, his 2000 cubits are calculated from this place. Accordingly, when a person walks two thousand cubits from his *eruv* on the following day within his city, he may walk only to the end of his limit. If, however, the entire city is included within his limit, the city is considered as if it were only four cubits, and he may continue to the end of his limit beyond the city.⁶ 27:5, which explain that if a person's Sabbath limits end within a private domain, he is not entitled to proceed to the end of the domain. If, however, that domain is included within his 2000 cubits, it is considered to be only four cubits.
The Ramah (*Orach Chayim* 408:1) quotes the view of the *Tur*, the *Hagahot Maimoniot*, and other Ashkenazic authorities, who differ and maintain that one is allowed to proceed to the end of the private domain, even if it is further than 2000 cubits from one's *eruv t'chumin*. The *Mishnah Berurah* 408:12 mentions that many authorities support this ruling. See note 8.

footnotes:
⁴ A cubit is 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah
⁵ A person is always allowed to proceed 2000 cubits in all directions from the place where he spends the Sabbath. (See Hilchot Shabbat
⁶ The Rambam's statements here parallel his statements in Hilchot Shabbat


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:3
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:3)

כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ אֶת עֵרוּבוֹ בְּרִחוּק אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁבַּמְּדִינָה לְרוּחַ מִזְרָח נִמְצָא מְהַלֵּךְ לְמָחָר מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְמִזְרָח. וּמְהַלֵּךְ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְמַעֲרָב. אֶלֶף שֶׁמִּן הָעֵרוּב עַד בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶלֶף אַמָּה מִבֵּיתוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּדִינָה. וְאֵינוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמְּדִינָה אֶלָּא עַד סוֹף הָאֶלֶף. הָיָה מִבֵּיתוֹ עַד סוֹף הַמְּדִינָה פָּחוֹת מֵאֶלֶף אֲפִלּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִדָּתוֹ כָּלְתָה חוּץ לַמְּדִינָה תֵּחָשֵׁב הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּהּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וִיהַלֵּךְ חוּצָה לָהּ תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שֵׁשׁ וְתִשְׁעִים אַמָּה תַּשְׁלוּם הָאַלְפַּיִם:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
What is implied? When a person places his *eruv* one thousand cubits to the east of his house in a city, he may walk two thousand cubits eastward from the place of his *eruv* on the following day. He may also walk two thousand cubits to the west, one thousand from the *eruv* to his house, and one thousand from his house westward. He may not walk to the end of the city [limits, if they are] beyond the thousand cubits.
If there are less than one thousand cubits from his house to the boundaries of the city⁷ (in his gloss on this halachah and on *Hilchot Shabbat* 27:5) mentions the fact that when one establishes the Sabbath limits of a city, an imaginary square is constructed around the furthermost points in the city's area, and the Sabbath limits are calculated from that square. Thus, it is possible that land that is outside the city's urban limits may still be within the square from which its Sabbath limits are calculated.
Although a leniency is used in the calculation of the city's Sabbath limits, and these outlying areas are considered to be part of the city proper, this leniency is not turned into a stringency. If a person's 2000 cubits end beyond the city's urban area, but not beyond these outlying areas, the city is considered to be included within his Sabbath limits, and thus only four cubits in length. This concept is quoted by the Ramah (*Orach Chayim* 408:1). - even if his Sabbath limits end one cubit outside the city - the entire city is considered to be four cubits, and he may proceed 996 cubits beyond it to complete [his Sabbath limits of] two thousand [cubits].

footnotes:
⁷ The Maggid Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:4
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:4)

לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּרִחוּק אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁבַּמְּדִינָה הִפְסִיד אֶת כָּל הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּהּ. וְנִמְצָא מְהַלֵּךְ מִבֵּיתוֹ עַד עֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה וּמֵעֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם וְאֵינוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ מִבֵּיתוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה לְרוּחַ מַעֲרָב אֲפִלּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת. הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מְדִינָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנִינְוֵה וַאֲפִלּוּ עִיר חֲרֵבָה אוֹ מְעָרָה הָרְאוּיָה לְדִיּוּרִין מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְחוּצָה לָהּ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
According [to this principle], if a person placed his *eruv* two thousand cubits [towards the east] of his house in a city, he would lose [the possibility of walking] throughout the entire [area of] the city [to the west]. Thus, he would be permitted [to walk] two thousand cubits from his house to his *eruv* and from his *eruv* two thousand cubits further. He may not walk even one cubit to the west of his house in the city.⁸ and the Ramah (*Orach Chayim* 408:1) differ with the Rambam on this point and allow a person to walk throughout the entire city where his house is located, provided he sleeps in his home (*Mishnah Berurah* 408:11).
When a person places his *eruv* in a private domain - even if it is a metropolis like Nineveh, the ruins of a city, or a cave that is fit to be used as a dwelling - he is permitted to walk throughout its entire area and two thousand cubits beyond it in all directions.⁹ 27:1, the prohibition against proceeding more than 2000 cubits from one's place of residence on the Sabbath is derived from the verse (Exodus 16:29 : "No man should leave his place on the seventh day." The term "his place" refers to the private domain in which he is located, regardless if it be a house, a city, or any other location.
By making an *eruv t'chumin*, a person redefines the location of "his place" on the Sabbath. Even if he is not located at that place at the commencement of the Sabbath or shortly thereafter, the location where he deposits his *eruv* is considered to be "his place" for this Sabbath. Therefore, if that location is a private domain, that entire domain is considered to be "his place," and the calculation of his Sabbath limits begins from its boundaries.

footnotes:
⁸ As mentioned above, the Tur
⁹ The rationale for this decision can be explained as follows: As explained in Hilchot Shabbat


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

הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּדִינָה שֶׁשָּׁבַת בָּהּ לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם וְאֵין מוֹדְדִין לוֹ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כִּבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ חוּץ לַמְּדִינָה. וְכֵן אִם נָתַן עֵרוּבוֹ בַּמְּקוֹמוֹת הַמִּצְטָרְפִין לָעִיר שֶׁמּוֹדְדִין הַתְּחוּם חוּץ מֵהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּנוֹתְנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר. נָתַן עֵרוּבוֹ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
If a person deposits his *eruv* within the city in which he is spending the Sabbath, his actions are of no consequence and his [Sabbath limits] should not be measured from his *eruv*.¹⁰, he would be allowed to proceed two thousand cubits from the city limits. This follows the Rambam's conception, in contrast to that of the *Tur* mentioned above. Instead, he is like the other inhabitants of the city, and may proceed two thousand cubits in all directions outside the city.
If a person deposits his *eruv* in the outlying areas that are included within the city's boundaries, and the calculation of [the city's] Sabbath limits begins beyond these areas,¹¹ 27:5 (see also note 6), it is explained that the Sabbath limits of a city are calculated from an imaginary square that may include several uninhabited areas in the city's periphery. If the *eruv* is placed in these outlying areas, it is as if it were placed in the city proper. it is as if he had deposited it within the city [proper].
If a person deposits his *eruv* beyond the city's Sabbath limits, it is not considered to be a [valid] *eruv*.¹² is beyond his Sabbath limits, i.e., over 2000 cubits from the city's periphery, he may not reach it during *beyn hash'mashot*, the time when the acquisition of the *eruv* takes effect (*Mishnah Berurah* 408:30). Therefore, the *eruv* is not valid. Instead, his Sabbath limits are defined from his home (Ramah, *Orach Chayim* 408:4).

footnotes:
¹⁰ If his acts had been considered significant, he would have decreased his Sabbath limits, and not increased them. For without the eruv
¹¹ In Hilchot Shabbat
¹² Since the eruv


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

אֵין מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה רוֹצֶה לֵילֵךְ לְבֵית הָאָבֵל אוֹ לְמִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁל נִשּׂוּאִין אוֹ לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי רַבּוֹ אוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבָּא מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה רוֹצֶה לִבְרֹחַ מִן הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ מִן הַלִּסְטִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם עֵרֵב שֶׁלֹּא לְאֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא לְדִבְרֵי הָרְשׁוּת הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
An *eruv t'chumin* should be established only for a purpose associated with a mitzvah¹³ quotes the Rashba as saying that this applies only when one establishes one's *eruv* by using food. If, however, one actually walks to a place beyond a city's boundaries *beyn hash'mashot,* and in this manner establishes this location as one's place for the Sabbath, it is acceptable even if one's intent is not associated with a mitzvah. Although this view is not accepted by all authorities, the *Mishnah Berurah* 415:1 rules that in a pressing situation, one may rely on the more lenient view. - e.g., a person who desires to go to the house of a mourner, to a wedding feast, to greet his teacher or to greet a colleague returning from a journey, or the like.¹⁴ 415:1) mentions a desire to take a stroll in a pleasant orchard.
[Similarly, one may establish an *eruv t'chumin*] out of fear - e.g., a person who seeks to flee from gentiles, from thieves or the like. If a person establishes an *eruv* for other reasons,¹⁵ his *eruv* is still valid.¹⁶ (*Orach Chayim* 415:1) follows the Rambam's view.
It must be emphasized that the "fear" mentioned by the Rambam refers to a situation when there is not an obvious danger to the person's life. Were that to be the case, he would be allowed to proceed beyond the 2000 cubits even if he had not established an *eruv*, for a threat to life takes precedence over the observance of all the Torah's laws with the exception of idol worship, sexual immorality, and murder.

footnotes:
¹³ The Maggid Mishneh
¹⁴ The expression "a purpose associated with a mitzvah" is used in a very extended sense in this context. As an example, the Ramah (Orach Chayim
¹⁵ E.g., to proceed toward the end of one's Sabbath limits, so that one will be closer to a destination to which one desires to travel for business purposes after the Sabbath.
¹⁶ Although this is a matter of disagreement among the Rabbis, the Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:7
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:7)

כָּל שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּתְּפִין בּוֹ מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בּוֹ אֵין מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ תְּחוּמִין. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאִם הָיָה לִפְתָּן כְּדֵי לֶאֱכל בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת. כְּמוֹ הַשִּׁתּוּף:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
All foods that may be used for a *shituf* may also be used for an *eruv t'chumin*.¹⁷, for which bread alone may be used, all foods may used for an *eruv t'chumin* and a *shituf*, with the exception of water, salt, and mushrooms (Chapter 1, Halachah 8). Similarly, all foods that may not be used for a *shituf* are also unacceptable for an *eruv t'chumin*.
What is the minimum measure of food acceptable for an *eruv t'chumin*? The [amount of] food [sufficient] for two meals for every individual.¹⁸, even when there are thousands of inhabitants involved, it is necessary to provide two meals only for eighteen people. In contrast, regarding an *eruv t'chumin*, food must be set aside for every person who desires to use the *eruv*. When the food in question is a side dish,¹⁹ the minimum measure is an amount sufficient to accompany two meals - [i.e., it is governed by] the same [laws] as a *shituf*.

footnotes:
¹⁷ In contrast to an eruv chatzerot
¹⁸ See Chapter 1, Halachah 9. There is, however, a distinction. Regarding a shituf
¹⁹ See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:8
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:8)

וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הוּא וְעֵרוּבוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְאָכְלוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אֶלָּא בַּעֲבֵרָה:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
It is necessary for [the place where] a person [intends to spend the Sabbath]²⁰, but rather the place where he would partake of his *eruv*. There are times when it is impossible for him to partake of the *eruv* in the domain in which it is located - to cite the example given by the Mishnah, *Eruvin* 3:3: the *eruv* was placed in a tree more than ten handbreadths above the ground. In such instances, since it is not permissible to carry the *eruv* from the place where it was deposited to the place where the person would partake of it, the *eruv* is not valid. and his *eruv* to be in the same domain, so that it is possible for him to partake of it *beyn hash'mashot*.²¹ must be established.
Therefore, if the person intends to spend the Sabbath in a public domain and places his *eruv* in a private domain, or if he [intends to spend the Sabbath in a] private domain and places his *eruv* in a public domain, the *eruv* is not valid. For it is impossible to transfer articles from a private domain to a public domain without performing a transgression.

footnotes:
²⁰ This does not mean the person's home, or the place where he is standing beyn hash'mashot
²¹ This is the time when the Sabbath commences, and it is at this hour that the eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:9
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:9)

אֲבָל אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּת בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּכַרְמְלִית. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּת בְּכַרְמְלִית וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת קְנִיַּת הָעֵרוּב שֶׁהוּא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת מֻתָּר לְהוֹצִיא וּלְהַכְנִיס מִכָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּי הָרְשׁוּיוֹת לְכַרְמְלִית לִדְבַר מִצְוָה. שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
If, however, a person intends to spend the Sabbath in a private domain or in a public domain, and he places his *eruv* in a *carmelit*, or he intends to spend the Sabbath in a *carmelit,* and he places his *eruv* in a private domain or in a public domain, the *eruv* is acceptable. For during *beyn hash'mashot,* the time when the *eruv* is established, it is permitted to transfer articles from either of these domains to a *carmelit* for the sake of a mitzvah.
All the [prohibitions] instituted because of a Rabbinic decree were not applied *beyn hash'mashot* in a situation involving a mitzvah²² 24:10. or in a case of urgent need.²³.

footnotes:
²² See Hilchot Shabbat
²³ And, as mentioned in Halachah 6, it is only in situations such as these that it is permissible to establish an eruv t'chumin


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:10
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:10)

נְתָנוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל וְנָעַל וְאָבַד הַמַּפְתֵּחַ אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּלֹא עֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁאֵין אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אֶלָּא מְלָאכָה. נְתָנוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַקָּנֶה אוֹ הַקֻּנְדָּס הַצּוֹמְחִין מִן הָאָרֶץ אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִתְלֹשׁ. וְאִם הָיוּ תְּלוּשִׁין וּנְעוּצִין הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The following rule applies when a person] places his *eruv* in a closet, locks it, and then loses the key: If he can remove his *eruv* without performing a labor that is forbidden by the Torah, it is valid.²⁴, it is not valid. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 22.)
If a person places his *eruv* at the top of a reed or a shaft that grows from the earth, it is not valid. This is a decree, lest he break off [the reed].²⁵ when a mitzvah is involved, our Sages maintained their decree in this instance. For one might think that the reed has already been detached, and it is likely that one might break it (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, *Eruvin* 3:3). If [these articles] were already detached and were implanted [in the ground], the *eruv* is valid.²⁶ 409:14).

footnotes:
²⁴ If, however, he must perform a labor forbidden by the Torah to obtain the eruv
²⁵ Although Rabbinic prohibitions are not normally enforced beyn hash'mashot
²⁶ Provided that they are not implanted in the public domain and there is not a basket, four handbreadths by four handbreadths, at their top (Mishnah Berurah


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:11
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:11)

כָּל הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ בִּמְקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין שֶׁלּוֹ בְּסוֹף הַתְּחוּם וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל הָעֵרוּב וְיָצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא יָצָא מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. וְאִם יָצָא חוּץ לִשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְהַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיעַ אֶל עֵרוּבוֹ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
Whenever a person deposits an *eruv*, he is granted four cubits [in which to carry] at the place of the *eruv*. Thus, if a person places an *eruv t'chumin* at the end of the Sabbath limits, and then the *eruv* rolled two cubits beyond the Sabbath limits,²⁷ 45a): Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a person is considered to be located in the midst of the four cubits he is granted. Therefore, as the Rambam states here, he is granted only two cubits in either direction. Rabbi Yehudah differs and maintains that he is granted four cubits in either direction. It is Rabbi Yehudah's view that is accepted as halachah.
The *Maggid Mishneh* notes that in *Hilchot Shabbat* 12:15 and 27:11, the Rambam follows Rabbi Yehudah's view. There is, the *Maggid Mishneh* maintains, a difference between the ruling regarding the laws of carrying and the ruling regarding the Sabbath limits. His distinction is explained by the Radbaz (Vol. VI, Responsum 2237), who states that for an *eruv t'chumin* to be effective a person must be able to reach it while standing within the Sabbath limits. If the *eruv* is within two cubits of the Sabbath limits, the person can bend over and reach it. If it is further away, he would have to leave his Sabbath limits to reach it. Hence, it is not valid.
The Ra'avad's decision is quoted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 409:5). the *eruv* is valid; it is not considered to have left its [original] place.
If, however, the *eruv* rolls more than two cubits [beyond the Sabbath limits], it is not valid, for it is beyond the Sabbath limits. And [as stated previously,]²⁸ when an *eruv* is placed beyond a person's Sabbath limits, it is invalid, since the person is unable to reach his *eruv*.

footnotes:
²⁷ The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, noting that the matter is the subject of a difference of opinion between our Sages (Eruvin
²⁸ Halachah 5.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:12
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:12)

נִתְגַּלְגֵּל הָעֵרוּב וְיָצָא שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אוֹ אָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה תְּרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁקְּנִיַּת הָעֵרוּב בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. וְאִם סָפֵק הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב שֶׁסְּפֵק הָעֵרוּב כָּשֵׁר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶאֱכַל הָעֵרוּב בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
The following rules apply when] an *eruv* rolled [more] than two cubits beyond the Sabbath limits,²⁹ it became lost or burned, or it contained *terumah* and it became impure:³⁰ may not be eaten. If this occurred before the commencement of the Sabbath, the *eruv* is invalid. If it occurred after nightfall, it is valid. For an *eruv* is established *beyn hash'mashot*.³¹ 3:4).
If one is in doubt [when the above occurred], the *eruv* is valid, for when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an *eruv*, it is considered acceptable.³² was acceptable when deposited, it is granted a *chezkat kiyyum* - i.e., we assume that the *status quo* remained the same and that it remained acceptable until immediately before the difficulty was discovered (*ibid.*).
(Although the Rambam mentions this concept in his Commentary on the Mishnah, his ruling in the following halachah implies that he does not accept this as a hard and fast rule.) Therefore, if the *eruv* was eaten *beyn hash'mashot*, it is acceptable.

footnotes:
²⁹ As explained in the previous halachah.
³⁰ Impure terumah
³¹ If it is valid at this time, what happens to it afterwards is of no consequence (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin
³² Since the eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:13
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:13)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם צֵא וְעָרֵב עָלֵינוּ. אֶחָד עֵרֵב עָלָיו מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם וְאֶחָד עֵרֵב עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. וְזֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב עָלָיו מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נֶאֱכַל עֵרוּבוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְזֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת נֶאֱכַל עֵרוּבוֹ מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה שְׁנֵיהֶם קָנוּ עֵרוּב. שֶׁבֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת סָפֵק הוּא וּסְפֵק הָעֵרוּב כָּשֵׁר. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן סָפֵק חֲשֵׁכָה סָפֵק לֹא חֲשֵׁכָה אֵין מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאִם עֵרֵב הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[The above rules are relevant in the following situation:] Two individuals told a person,³³ (agent) and establish an *eruv* for them. "Go and establish an *eruv* on our behalf." He established an *eruv* for one before the commencement of the Sabbath, and for the other, *beyn hash'mashot*. The *eruv* that was established before the commencement of the Sabbath was eaten *beyn hash'mashot*, and the *eruv* that was established *beyn hash'mashot* was eaten after nightfall.³⁴ is considered to be before the commencement of the Sabbath, the *eruv* that was eaten *beyn hash'mashot* is not valid. If *beyn hash'mashot* is considered to be after the commencement of the Sabbath, the *eruv* that was established *beyn hash'mashot* is not valid.
[The ruling is that] both *eruvin* are valid.³⁵ that was established *beyn hash'mashot* was eaten *beyn hash'mashot*, it is not valid. (See *Shulchan Aruch*, *Orach Chayim* 393:3.) For [the halachic status of] *beyn hash'mashot* is a matter of doubt,³⁶ is the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars. There is a question if this period is considered to be part of the day or part of the night. See *Hilchot Shabbat* 5:4. and when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an *eruv*, it is considered acceptable.³⁷ 34a) reflects a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. As mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah, most authorities maintain that an *eruv t'chumin* (in contrast to an *eruv chatzerot*) is acceptable when there is a doubt involved, only because it possesses a *chezkat kiyyum* - i.e., we knew that it was acceptable beforehand, and we presume that its status remained the same until we know otherwise. (See also Halachah 15.)
Therefore, other authorities (Rabbenu Chanan'el, Rabbenu Tam, Rashba) interpret this law as referring to an *eruv chatzerot*. There a *chezkat kiyyum* is not necessary, for an *eruv chatzerot* is only a Rabbinic institution (in contrast to an *eruv t'chumin*, which involves a prohibition that has its source in the Torah itself).
Nevertheless, it is possible to justify the Rambam's decision, for the prohibition against going beyond two thousand cubits is Rabbinic in origin (*Hilchot Shabbat* 27:1). Accordingly, since we are sure that the food set aside for the *eruv* can be eaten before the commencement of the Sabbath, and the doubt is merely whether the *eruv* was made at the proper time, the question concerns a matter of Rabbinic law. Therefore, we follow the principle, "Whenever there is a doubt concerning a point of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion is followed."
The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 415:3) quotes both views (although the Rambam's appears to be favored). The *Mishnah Berurah* 415:11 favors the other view. Nevertheless, if there is a question whether or not it is past nightfall, at the outset one should not proceed to establish an *eruv*.³⁸ may be established *beyn hash'mashot* (see Chapter 1, Halachah 21), the laws regarding an *eruv t'chumin* are more severe (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, *Shabbat* 2:6). [After the fact,] if one established an *eruv*, it is valid.

footnotes:
³³ They both empowered him to act as a shaliach
³⁴ This situation represents a paradox: If beyn hash'mashot
³⁵ If, however, the eruv
³⁶ Beyn hash'mashot
³⁷ This ruling (based on Shabbat
³⁸ Although at the outset, an eruv chatzerot


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:14
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:14)

נָפַל עַל הָעֵרוּב גַּל מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּלֹא עֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁהִיא שְׁעַת קְנִיַּת הָעֵרוּב. וְאִם נָפַל עָלָיו גַּל מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹצִיאוֹ אֶלָּא בַּעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה. סָפֵק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נָפַל אוֹ מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁסְּפֵק הָעֵרוּב כָּשֵׁר:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
Although an avalanche falls on an *eruv* before the commencement of the Sabbath, it remains acceptable provided it can be removed without performing a [forbidden] labor. For it is permissible to remove it *beyn hash'mashot*,³⁹ and removing them on the Sabbath would be forbidden, since a mitzvah is involved there is no prohibition against removing them *beyn hash'mashot*., which is the time when the *eruv* is established.
If the avalanche fell on it after nightfall, it is also valid, even if it cannot be removed without performing a [forbidden] labor.⁴⁰ was established it was valid, and what happens afterwards is of no consequence. (See also Chapter 1, Halachah 21.) If there is a doubt whether [the avalanche] fell before the commencement of the Sabbath or after nightfall, it is acceptable, because when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an *eruv*, it is considered acceptable.

footnotes:
³⁹ Although the stones are muktzeh
⁴⁰ For at the time the eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:15
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:15)

אֲבָל אִם עֵרֵב בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא סָפֵק טְמֵאָה אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב שֶׁאֵינָהּ סְעֻדָּה הָרְאוּיָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אַחַת טְהוֹרָה וְאַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן וְאָמַר עֵרוּבִי בַּטְּהוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. שֶׁאֵין כָּאן סְעֻדָּה הָרְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילָה:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
If, however, one established an *eruv* with *terumah* concerning which there was a doubt about its ritual purity,⁴¹ if it is ritually impure. In this instance, however, there is a doubt and we do not know if, in fact, the *terumah* has contracted ritual impurity or not. the *eruv* is invalid, for the meal is not fit to be eaten.⁴² is considered acceptable when there is a doubt regarding its validity only when it possesses a *chezkat kiyyum*. As proof, they point to this law, which appears to indicate that the *eruv* is not considered acceptable because it was never known to be valid.
The Rambam explains that the reason why the *eruv* is not acceptable in this instance is not that it lacks a *chezkat kiyyum*, but because it may never be eaten. Because of the doubt involved, it is forbidden to partake of this loaf.
To summarize, in the instances mentioned in the previous halachot, the doubt revolves around the acceptability of the *eruv*. Therefore, we follow the principle, "when there is a doubt [with regard to the validity of] an *eruv*, it is considered acceptable." In this halachah, the doubt is whether the *terumah* may be eaten. This is a question of Torah law, and we are required to rule stringently (*Noda BiY'hudah, Yoreh De'ah*, Vol. I, Responsum 65).
[Similarly, an *eruv* is invalid in the following situation]: A person possessed two loaves of bread that were *terumah*. One of them was pure and one was impure, but he did not know which was pure and which was impure. Although he said, "The [loaf] that is pure, whichever it is, will serve as my *eruv*," the *eruv* is invalid, for the meal is not fit to be eaten.⁴³

footnotes:
⁴¹ As mentioned above, it is forbidden to partake of terumah
⁴² With this phrase, the Rambam clarifies his position with regard to a question asked by many authorities based on the situation described in Halachah 13. As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, many authorities maintain that an eruv
⁴³ Although there is a pure loaf there, since we do not know which loaf it is, the meal is not fit to be eaten.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:16
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:16)

אָמַר כִּכָּר זֶה הַיּוֹם חֹל וּלְמָחָר קֹדֶשׁ וְעֵרֵב בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁבֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת עֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וַדַּאי וּרְאוּיָה הָיְתָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הַיּוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וּלְמָחָר חֹל אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה וְהִתְנָה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה תְּרוּמָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא טֶבֶל כָּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַסְּעֻדָּה רְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
If a person said: "This loaf of bread is not consecrated today, but it will be consecrated tomorrow," [and uses the loaf for an *eruv*,] the *eruv* is valid. For *beyn hash'mashot*, it had not as yet become definitely consecrated, and thus it was fit to be eaten before commencement of the Sabbath.
If, however, he said, "Today it is consecrated, and tomorrow it is not consecrated," it may not be used for an *eruv*, for it is fit [to be eaten] only after nightfall.⁴⁴.
Similarly, if one set aside *terumah* and made a stipulation that it will not become *terumah* until nightfall, it may not be used for an *eruv*. For throughout *beyn hash'mashot* it is *tevel*⁴⁵ and/or the other agricultural requirements were not separated. It is forbidden to be eaten until these separations are made. [which may not be eaten], and it is necessary for the meal [set aside as the *eruv*] to be fit to be eaten before the commencement of the Sabbath.⁴⁶

footnotes:
⁴⁴ We are not certain that the sanctity with which it had been endowed has departed until nightfall. At that time, it is too late to establish an eruv
⁴⁵ Food from which terumah
⁴⁶ See Chapter 1, Halachah 22.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:17
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:17)

הַנּוֹתֵן עֵרוּבוֹ בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב לְפִי שֶׁבֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּם הָעֵרוּב שָׁם אַחַר קְנִיָּה הֲרֵי נֶהֱנֶה בּוֹ. נְתָנוֹ בְּבֵית הַפְּרָס הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כֹּהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִכָּנֵס שָׁם בְּמִגְדָּל הַפּוֹרֵחַ אוֹ שֶׁיְּנַפֵּחַ וְהוֹלֵךְ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When an *eruv* is placed in a cemetery, it is invalid. [The rationale is that] it is forbidden to derive benefit from a cemetery.⁴⁷ 26b). The Rambam follows the more stringent view. Although other authorities accept the more lenient ruling, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 409:1) cites the Rambam's decision. (See *Be'ur Halachah*.) Since the person desires that the *eruv* be preserved there after it was established, he is deriving benefit [from the cemetery].⁴⁸ for the placement of an *eruv* is a mitzvah and the mitzvot were not given for our personal benefit. The difficulty arises afterwards. Since the person desires that the *eruv* be maintained in the cemetery, he is deriving benefit from it. Hence, it is forbidden to establish an *eruv* in this manner (*Eruvin* 31a; Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, *Eruvin* 3:1).
(See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, who asks why the *eruv* is unacceptable. Although it is forbidden to derive benefit from the cemetery in this manner, the fact that a person violates this prohibition should not invalidate his *eruv*.)
If the *eruv* is placed in a *beit hap'ras*,⁴⁹ 10:1). it is valid. This applies even to a priest, for he can enter [the *beit hap'ras* in an elevated [closed] compartment,⁵⁰). (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, *ibid.*.) or he may sift through its earth⁵¹). Others explain that this refers to blowing away any chips of bone. [and proceed to his *eruv*].

footnotes:
⁴⁷ This ruling is the subject of a debate among our Sages (Eruvin
⁴⁸ The difficulty is not in the actual placement of the eruv beyn hash'mashot,
⁴⁹ A field or yard that was plowed despite the fact that a grave was located there. Our Sages feared that some of the bones of the corpse became strewn throughout the field. Hence, they considered it to be impure ground (Hilchot Tum'at Meit
⁵⁰ A compartment carried by other people or animals. Since there is a board below him, he does not contract ritual impurity when he passes above a grave or a corpse (tum'at ohel
⁵¹ Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (ibid.


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:18
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:18)

רַבִּים שֶׁרָצוּ לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף בְּעֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין מְקַבְּצִין כֻּלָּן עֵרוּבָן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וּמַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצוּ. וְאִם עָשָׂה אֶחָד עֵרוּב עַל יְדֵי כֻּלָּן צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ לָאָדָם עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין אֶלָּא לְדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְעָרֵב בְּאוֹתָהּ הָרוּחַ שֶׁרָצָה זֶה. וְאִם הוֹדִיעוֹ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ עַד שֶׁחֲשֵׁכָה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
[These rules should be followed when] many desire to join together in an *eruv t'chumin*: They should each contribute enough food for two meals⁵², the equivalent of two meals is required for every participant in the *eruv*, regardless of the number of the participants. The rationale is that through depositing the *eruv*, the person establishes the place in which he has deposited it as his "place" for the Sabbath. This must be done for every person participating in the *eruv* (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, *Eruvin* 8:1). and place [the food] in a single container in [whichever] place they choose.⁵³
If one person desires to make an *eruv* on behalf of many others, he must grant them a share by means of another person⁵⁴ and notify them. [This is necessary because] an *eruv t'chumin* may not be established on a person's behalf unless he consents,⁵⁵, which, in most circumstances, is considered to be a benefit to a person unless he explicitly objects, an *eruv t'chumin* is dependent on the person's consent. For by extending his Sabbath boundaries in one direction, it reduces them in the other direction. since it is possible that he will not desire to have the *eruv* made in the direction chosen by the other person.
If the person is notified before the commencement of the Sabbath,⁵⁶ 413:6 cites opinions that state that it is acceptable if one received notification *beyn hash'mashot*. the *eruv* is acceptable even though he did not express his consent until after nightfall.⁵⁷ 82a, explains that this is dependent on the principle of *b'reirah* - i.e., when a person decides to rely on the *eruv* retroactively, it becomes clarified that this was his original intent. If he was not notified of the *eruv* until after nightfall, he may not rely on it, for an *eruv* may not be established after nightfall.

footnotes:
⁵² In contrast to an eruv chatzerot
⁵³ Note the parallel to Chapter 1, Halachah 17.
⁵⁴ As in Chapter 1, Halachah 20.
⁵⁵ In contrast to an eruv chatzerot
⁵⁶ The Mishnah Berurah
⁵⁷ Eruvin


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:19
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:19)

כָּל הַזּוֹכֶה בְּעֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת מְזַכִּין עַל יָדוֹ בְּעֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין מְזַכִּין עַל יָדוֹ עֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת אֵין מְזַכִּין עַל יָדוֹ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
All the individuals entitled to take possession of [a share in an *eruv* for another person] with regard to an *eruv chatzerot*⁵⁸ are also entitled to take possession of [a share in an *eruv* for another person] with regard to an *eruv t'chumin*.
Conversely, all the individuals who are not entitled to take possession of [a share in an *eruv* for another person] with regard to an *eruv chatzerot* are also not entitled to take possession of [a share in an *eruv* for another person] with regard to an *eruv t'chumin*.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.


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

נוֹתֵן אָדָם מָעָה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקַּח לוֹ פַּת וִיעָרֵב לוֹ בָּהּ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן לְחֶנְוָנִי אוֹ לְנַחְתּוֹם וְאָמַר לוֹ זְכֵה לִי בְּמָעָה זוֹ אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ עַרֵב עָלַי בְּמָעָה זוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵחַ בָּהּ פַּת אוֹ אֹכֶל מִן הָאֳכָלִין וּמְעָרֵב עָלָיו. וְאִם נָתַן לוֹ כְּלִי וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי בָּזֶה אֹכֶל וּזְכֵה לִי בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵחַ אֹכֶל וּמְעָרֵב עָלָיו בּוֹ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
A person may give a *ma'ah* to a homeowner with the intent that [the latter] buy a loaf of bread for him and establish an *eruv t'chumin* on his behalf.⁵⁹), *Hilchot Mechirah* 3:1]. In this instance, they allowed leniency, accepting the Torah's ruling that a sale is finalized by the purchaser's payment of money. [And we assume that the *eruv* has been established.] If, however, he gives [money] to a storekeeper or a baker, and tells him: "[Have someone] acquire a share on my behalf," we [do not assume that] an *eruv* has been established.⁶⁰ (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah). Note the *Maggid Mishneh*, who offers a different explanation.
See also the *Tur* and the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 369:1), who interpret these laws as referring to an *eruv chatzerot* and do not mention them within the context of an *eruv t'chumin*.
[Even with regard to a storekeeper,] if he tells him: "Establish an *eruv* for me with this *ma'ah*," [we assume that the storekeeper] will buy bread or other foodstuffs with the money and establish an *eruv* on his behalf.⁶¹ If the person gave [a storekeeper] a utensil, and told him: "Give me food in exchange for this and establish an *eruv* [with that food] on my behalf," [we assume that he] will purchase the food and establish the *eruv* on his behalf.⁶² explains that, in contrast to a transaction made with money, a transaction made by exchanging articles is completed at the moment of the exchange. (See *Hilchot Mechirah* 5:1.) Therefore, the bread belongs to the person and can be used for the *eruv*.
Based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah cited previously, Rav Kapach offers a different interpretation: that since he will have to appraise the utensil or sell it, the storekeeper will remember to establish the *eruv*.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ In contrast to a storekeeper or a baker, we assume a private person will fulfill the request made of him.Generally, our Sages ordained that even when a purchaser has already paid for the item he purchased, the transaction is not finalized until he draws the item he purchased after him [(meshichah
⁶⁰ For it is possible that the storekeeper will forget and not have another person acquire a share in the eruv
⁶¹ Since the person makes an explicit statement, we assume that the storekeeper will remember to do so.
⁶² The Maggid Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:21
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:21)

מְעָרֵב אָדָם עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים בֵּין מִדַּעְתָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם עֵרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן וְעֵרְבוּ לְעַצְמָן יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁל רַבָּן. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן אוֹכְלִין אֶצְלוֹ עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ. וְאִם עֵרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן וְשָׁמְעוּ וְשָׁתְקוּ וְלֹא מִחוּ יוֹצְאִין בְּעֵרוּבוֹ. עֵרֵב עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְעֵרְבוּ הֵן לְעַצְמָן אֵין לְךָ מְחָאָה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ וְיוֹצְאִין בְּעֵרוּב עַצְמָן. קָטָן בֵּן שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹ פָּחוֹת יוֹצֵא בְּעֵרוּב אִמּוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַנִּיחַ עָלָיו מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת לְעַצְמוֹ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
A person may establish an *eruv t'chumin* on behalf of his sons and daughters who are below the age of majority⁶³ and on behalf of his Canaanite servants and maidservants⁶⁴ - with or without their knowledge.⁶⁵ 414:1 states that this ruling applies even if they do not depend on their father or master for their sustenance. Therefore, if he has established an *eruv* for them and they have established an *eruv* on their own behalf, they should rely on [the *eruv*] established by their master.
A person may not, by contrast, establish an *eruv* for his sons and daughters who have passed majority, for his Hebrew servants and maidservants, or for his wife, without their consent.⁶⁶ [This applies] even if they eat at his table.
If he established an *eruv* on their behalf, and they heard and remained silent without objecting, they may rely on the *eruv* that he established.⁶⁷, there is no need for them to express their consent. The failure to object is sufficient. The *Mishnah Berurah* 414:4 adds a further leniency. Even if they were not notified about the *eruv* until after nightfall, since it can be assumed that they will desire to rely on the *eruv*, it is acceptable. If, however, he established an *eruv* for one of these people and [that person] established an *eruv* for himself, there can be no greater objection than this, and [that person] should rely on his own *eruv*.
A child of six years old or less may be taken out, relying on the *eruv* established for his mother.⁶⁸ 6:1), a child is considered to be dependent on his mother until the age of six. (See the *Mishnah Berurah* 414:7, which cites other opinions that require a separate *eruv* to be established for a child below the age of six.) There is no need to set aside a separate amount of food equivalent to two meals for him.

footnotes:
⁶³ Children below the age of majority do not have an independent halachic status.
⁶⁴ Canaanite servants are obligated to fulfill all the negative commandments of the Torah (including the obligation to keep the Sabbath limits). They are not, however, granted any independent decision-making capacity, and instead are considered as their owner's property.
⁶⁵ The Shulchan Aruch
⁶⁶ All these individuals possess the halachic right to make their own decisions, and their relationship with their father, master, or husband is no different from that between two other individuals.
⁶⁷ Since there is a high probability that these individuals will desire to rely on this eruv
⁶⁸ In other halachic contexts as well (see Hilchot Sukkah


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:22
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:22)

הָרוֹצֶה לְשַׁלֵּחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר לְהַנִּיחוֹ לוֹ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִקְבֹּעַ שְׁבִיתָתוֹ שָׁם הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן וְלֹא בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּמִצְוַת עֵרוּב. וְאִם שָׁלַח אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. וְאִם שְׁלָחוֹ בְּיַד אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ הַפְּסוּלִין לְהוֹלִיכוֹ לְאָדָם כָּשֵׁר כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹלִיכוֹ הַכָּשֵׁר וְיַנִּיחוֹ בִּמְקוֹם הָעֵרוּב הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁלָחוֹ עַל הַקּוֹף אוֹ עַל הַפִּיל. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה עוֹמֵד מֵרָחוֹק עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה זֶה הַפָּסוּל אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ אֵצֶל הַכָּשֵׁר שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ לְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הָעֵרוּב. וְכֵן רַבִּים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בְּעֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין וְרָצוּ לִשְׁלֹחַ עֵרוּבָן בְּיַד אַחֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּחִין:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
A person has the option of sending his *eruv* with an agent [whom he has instructed to] deposit it in the location that he desires to define as his place for the Sabbath.⁶⁹. He need not check to see if he has, in fact, done so (*Eruvin* 32b). He should not, however, send [the *eruv*] with a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent individual, or a child,⁷⁰, for in that context, all that is necessary is that they collect the food. nor with a person who does not accept the mitzvah of *eruv*.⁷¹ 3:2). Needless to say, a gentile may not serve in this capacity, for he can never serve as an agent. If he sends the *eruv* with one of these individuals, it is not acceptable.
If, however, he sent [the *eruv*] with one of these individuals [with instructions for them] to bring it to a person who is acceptable [to act as an agent], so that the latter would take it and deposit it in the [desired] location, [the *eruv*] is acceptable. Indeed, even if he sent [the *eruv*] via a monkey or an elephant [it would be acceptable]. [There is, however, one stipulation: the person sending the *eruv*] must watch from afar until he sees the person who is unfit [to serve as an agent or the animal] reach the person who is fit [to serve as an agent], whom he has instructed to deposit the *eruv*.⁷² has in fact reached his agent (*Eruvin, ibid.*).
Similarly, many individuals who have joined together in an *eruv t'chumin* have the option of sending their *eruv* via an agent if they desire.

footnotes:
⁶⁹ And having charged the agent with this mission, he can rely on the agent to have deposited the eruv
⁷⁰ These individuals are not considered to be responsible for their actions and may not serve as agents. There is, however, a difference regarding an eruv chatzerot
⁷¹ I.e., a Sadducee or a Samaritan (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Eruvin
⁷² The only reason it is necessary for him to watch is so that he knows that the eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:23
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:23)

אֶחָד אוֹ רַבִּים שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְאֶחָד צֵא וַעֲרֵב עָלֵינוּ וְעֵרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן בְּאֵי זֶה רוּחַ שֶׁרָצָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וְיוֹצְאִין בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יִחֲדוּ לוֹ רוּחַ. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ עָרֵב עָלַי בִּתְמָרִים וְעֵרֵב עָלָיו בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת. בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת וְעֵרֵב עָלָיו בִּתְמָרִים. אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּיחַ עֵרוּבִי בְּמִגְדָּל וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּשׁוֹבָךְ. בְּשׁוֹבָךְ וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל. בַּבַּיִת וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּעֲלִיָּה בַּעֲלִיָּה וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּבַּיִת אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ עָרֵב עָלַי סְתָם וְעֵרֵב עָלָיו בֵּין בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת בֵּין בִּתְמָרִים בֵּין בַּבַּיִת בֵּין בַּעֲלִיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
When one person or a group of people tell another person, "Go out and make an *eruv* on our behalf," and the person does so, choosing the direction in which to make the *eruv* himself, the *eruv* is acceptable.⁷³ explains that since this is a question of Rabbinic law, the principle of *b'reirah* is employed. This means that retroactively, it is considered that the decision made by the agent expressed the intent of the person who charged him with establishing the *eruv*. They may rely on it,⁷⁴ was established until after nightfall (*Maggid Mishneh, Mishnah Berurah* 409:52). for they did not specify the direction [they desired].
When a person says, "Establish an *eruv* for me with dates," and [his agent] establishes with dried figs, or he mentions dried figs, and [the agent] uses dates, the *eruv* is not acceptable. Similarly, if the person asked that the *eruv* be placed in a closet and it was placed in a dovecote, or [he asked that it be placed] in a dovecote, and it was placed in a closet, or [he asked that it be placed] in a house, and it was placed in a loft, or [he asked that it be placed] in a loft, and it was placed in a house, the *eruv* is not acceptable.⁷⁵ with food belonging to him or with food belonging to the person who sent him (*Mishnah Berurah* 409:53).
If, however, the person told [the agent], "Establish an *eruv* for me," without making any specifications, the *eruv* is acceptable regardless of whether he used dried figs or dates, or deposited it in a house or in a loft.

footnotes:
⁷³ The Maggid Mishneh
⁷⁴ Even if they did not know the direction in which the eruv
⁷⁵ Because the agent did not carry out the instructions given to him. These rulings apply regardless of whether the agent establishes the eruv


###### Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:24
[Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 6:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Eruvin/r/6:24)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּבָרְכִין עַל עֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת וְשִׁתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת כָּךְ מְבָרְכִין עַל עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. וְאוֹמֵר בְּזֶה הָעֵרוּב יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר לִי לְהַלֵּךְ לְמָקוֹם זֶה אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ. וְאִם הָיָה אֶחָד מְעָרֵב עַל יְדֵי רַבִּים אוֹמֵר בְּזֶה הָעֵרוּב יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹ לִבְנֵי מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ לִבְנֵי עִיר זוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ מִמָּקוֹם זֶה אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ:

**Sefaria Edition. Translated by R. Francis Nataf, 2019:**
Just as a blessing is recited [before] establishing an *eruv* in a courtyard or a *shituf* in a lane,⁷⁶. See also the notes on that halachah, which explain why a blessing is recited before the performance of a Rabbinic commandment. so too, a blessing is recited [before establishing] an *eruv t'chumin*.⁷⁷ does not introduce any new practice. Even an *eruv chatzerot* makes one conscious of the prohibition against carrying in a public domain. An *eruv t'chumin*, by contrast, merely grants a person a leniency.
The *Maggid Mishneh* explains the rationale for the Rambam's ruling. In practice, as stated in the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Orach Chayim* 415:4), the custom is to recite a blessing.
[After reciting the blessing,] one should say:⁷⁸ 415:15, which states that if a person fails to make a statement of this nature, the *eruv* is not acceptable. As mentioned in the notes on the following chapter, this applies, however, only when one has deposited food for the *eruv*, and not when one has actually walked there oneself.
See also the *Mishnah Berurah* 415:16, which mentions that in his statement the person should specify that he is establishing the *eruv* for the following day, or for all the Sabbaths of the coming year. "With this *eruv*, it will be permissible for me to proceed two thousand cubits in every direction from this location."
If he is establishing the *eruv* on behalf of many individuals, he should say, "With this *eruv*, it will be possible for 'so and so'..." or "for the people of this community..." or "for the inhabitants of this city to proceed two thousand cubits in every direction from this location."

footnotes:
⁷⁶ Chapter 1, Halachah 16. The very same blessing is recited for an eruv t'chumin
⁷⁷ Note the Ra'avad, who objects to the recitation of a blessing for this mitzvah, for in contrast to other Rabbinic mitzvot, the institution of an eruv t'chumin
⁷⁸ Note the Mishnah Berurah