SECTION 380 The Laws [Governing] The Nullification of One’s Domain (1-7)

סימן שפ דִּינֵי בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת וּבוֹ ז' סְעִיפִים:

1 [When] one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not join in the eruv with the others, he causes [the other residents of the courtyard] to be forbidden [to carry in the courtyard].1 What can be done to rectify the matter?

[That resident] should nullify the rights he has to the courtyard in favor of the others, saying, “My rights are nullified in your favor,” or “My rights are acquired by you.” There is no need to formalize the transfer with a kinyan sudar.2

[One] may [even] nullify his rights [to the courtyard] after nightfall [on Friday evening]. True, a transfer of property may not be formalized on Shabbos.3[Nevertheless,] in this instance, it is not necessary for [the other residents] to acquire [the person’s] domain, only for [that person] to relinquish [his rights] to it,4 for then, as a result, there is no person [whose rights to the courtyard] cause [the other residents] to be forbidden [to carry in it]. And it is permitted for [a person] to relinquish his rights to his domain on Shabbos.

If a person dwells together with four or five [others in the same courtyard], he must nullify [his rights] in favor of each one of them, saying, “My rights are nullified in favor of all of you.” It is not sufficient [for the person] to nullify [his rights] in favor of only one of [the other residents], even though the individual to whom he nullifies [his rights] already joined in the eruv with the others. If [the person who forgot to join in the eruv] does not [nullify his rights to the courtyard in favor of all the other residents of the courtyard], even the one in whose favor he did nullify [his rights] is forbidden [to carry in the courtyard].

There are authorities who maintain that it is not sufficient to say, “My rights are nullified in favor of all of you.” Instead, [the person] must specifically say “[My rights are] nullified in favor of you and [in favor of] you….” With regard to actual practice, [since the matter concerns] Rabbinic Law, the more lenient ruling may be followed.

א אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶםא – אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם.1 מַה תַּקָּנָתָם?ב יְבַטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֶּחָצֵר, שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לָכֶם" אוֹ "רְשׁוּתִי קְנוּיָה לָכֶם". וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִקְנוֹת בְּקִנְיַן סוּדָר.ג,2 וְיָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ.ד,1 וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קוֹנִין קִנְיָן בְּשַׁבָּת,ה,3 מִכָּל מָקוֹם כַּאן אֵין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּקְנוּ הֵם רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא יְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ,ו,4 וּמִמֵּילָא אֵין מִי שֶׁיֶּאֱסֹר עֲלֵיהֶם; וּלְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ מֻתָּר אַף בְּשַׁבָּת.ז

וְאִם דָּר עִם ד' אוֹ ה' – צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד,ח שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְכֻלְּכֶם",ט וְלֹא דַי שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁמְּבַטֵּל לוֹ כְּבָר עֵרֵב עִם הַשְּׁאָר.י וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵּן, אַף לְמִי שֶׁבִּטֵּל לוֹ אָסוּר.יא וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםיב שֶׁלֹּא דַי שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְכֻלְּכֶם", אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ וְיֹאמַר "מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְךָ וּלְךָ". וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַלֵךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל:יג

2 If [the person] nullified his rights in their favor without being specific,5 [it is understood that] he only nullified his rights to the courtyard. Therefore, [the other residents of the courtyard] are permitted to take [articles] from their homes into the courtyard. [This sanction] is also [granted to the owner who nullified his rights6 to the courtyard], because he is considered merely as a guest [visiting] the others.7 [The residents of the courtyard] are, however, forbidden to take [articles] from the home [of the person who nullified his rights] into the courtyard or bring [articles from the courtyard] into [his home]. [The rationale is that the person’s] home remains exclusively his while the courtyard is [exclusively] theirs. Thus, [transferring from one to the other] constitutes transferring from one domain to another.

[This stringency] applies even [to the person who nullified his rights]. Although his house is his property and he is a guest of the others in the courtyard, he is nevertheless prohibited against taking [articles] from his home into the courtyard (or bringing them in [to his home from there]). [The rationale is that the sanction granted to him] as a guest of the other [residents of the courtyard] applies only with regard to making use of the courtyard from their homes. [However,] it is not appropriate to say that [the person who nullified his rights] will be [the] guest [of the other residents of the courtyard] with regard to making use of the courtyard to and from his house.

There are authorities who maintain that [the person who nullified his rights to the courtyard] is required to lock his house so that he will not [come to] take out [articles in violation of this] prohibition; [the person] may only unlock [his house] when he desires to depart or enter, locking it [again] directly after his departure or entry. [Nevertheless,] one who follows the lenient view is not remiss, because he has an authority on whom to rely.

ב אִם בִּטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ סְתָםיד,5 – לֹא בִטֵּל אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֶּחָצֵר. לְפִיכָךְ הֵם מֻתָּרִים לְהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר וְגַם6 הוּא,טו,1 לְפִי שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אֶצְלָם כְּאוֹרֵחַ בְּעָלְמָא.טז,7 אֲבָל אֲסוּרִים לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר וְכֵן לְהַכְנִיס,יז,1 שֶׁהֲרֵי בֵּיתוֹ הוּא מְיֻחָד לוֹ וְהֶחָצֵר לָהֶם, וַהֲרֵי זֶה מוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת.יח וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא,יט,1 שֶׁבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ וְגַם בֶּחָצֵר הוּא כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָסוּר לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר (וְכֵן לְהַכְנִיסכ), לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁהוּא כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר, אֲבָל תַּשְׁמִישׁ שֶׁמִּבֵּיתוֹ אוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ – אֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא אוֹרֵחַ.כא וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםכב שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִנְעוֹל בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לְהוֹצִיא בְּאִסּוּר, וְלֹא יִפְתָּחֶנּוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁרוֹצֶה לָצֵאת וְלָבֹא, וְיִנְעָלֶנּוּ מִיָּד אַחַר צֵאתוֹ וּבוֹאוֹ. וְהַמֵּקֵל לֹא הִפְסִיד,כג כִּי יֵשׁ לוֹ עַל מִי לִסְמוֹךְ:כד

3 If, [however, the person] also [explicitly] nullified his rights [not only to the courtyard, but also] to his home, [the other residents] are also permitted to take [articles] from his house into the courtyard and [from the courtyard] into his house, just as they may do so with regard to their own houses.8 [The person] is also permitted [to use] his house, just as he is permitted [to use] theirs. [The rationale is that the person] has become the guest [of the other residents of the courtyard] in a complete sense, for he no longer possesses any property [in the courtyard] that he has not nullified in their favor. [The person] must, however, be careful not to take [articles] out from his home to the courtyard9 before [other residents] take articles from their homes to the courtyard, so that they will manifest their possession of the courtyard first. [Similarly, the person] should not bring [articles] from the courtyard into his home before [the other residents of the courtyard] bring articles from the courtyard into his home,10 as will be explained in sec. 381[:1].11

ג אִם בִּטֵּל לָהֶם גַּם רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ – מֻתָּרִים גַּם בְּבֵיתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לֶחָצֵר וְכֵן לְהַכְנִיס כְּמוֹ בְּבָתֵּיהֶם,כה,8 וְגַם הוּא מֻתָּר בְּבֵיתוֹ כְּמוֹ בְּבָתֵּיהֶם,כו לְפִי שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹרֵחַ גָּמוּר אֶצְלָם,כז כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ שׁוּם רְשׁוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִטְּלָה לָהֶם. רַק שֶׁיִּזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵרכח,9 קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ [הֵ]ם מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחֲזִיקוּ הֵם בֶּחָצֵר תְּחִלָּה,כט וְלֹא יַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹל,9 קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּכְנִיסוּ הֵם מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ,10 כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שפ"א:לא,11

4 [There is a difference of opinion among the authorities] if [the person who forgot to participate in the eruv] does not desire to nullify his rights to the others, but rather [wishes] to rent [his rights to the courtyard] out to [the other residents of the courtyard].12 There are authorities who maintain that renting rights from a Jew is valid13 just as it is valid [to rent such rights] from a non-Jew. [The rationale is that] renting [out one’s property] is no less effective a measure than nullifying one’s rights, which constitutes an outright gift.

Other authorities maintain that [the Sages] ordained [the practice of] renting property only for a non-Jew – since his nullification [of rights] is not valid – but not for a Jew.14 With regard to actual practice, [since the matter concerns] Rabbinic Law, the more lenient ruling may be followed.15

ד אִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְבַטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ12 – יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםלב שֶׁשְּׂכִירוּת מוֹעֶלֶת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוֹעֶלֶת בְּנָכְרִי,13 לְפִי שֶׁהַשְּׂכִירוּת אֵינָהּ גָּרוּעַ מֵהַבִּטּוּל שֶׁהִיא מַתָּנָה בְּחִנָּם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםלג שֶׁלֹּא תִקְּנוּ שְׂכִירוּת אֶלָּא בְּנָכְרִי שֶׁאֵין בִּטּוּלוֹ מוֹעִיל, אֲבָל לֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.14 וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל:לד,15

Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (Sichos In English)

The new layout – with the original text and the facing translation – provides a unique user-friendly approach to studying the Alter Rebbe’s work. An inclusive commentary provides insightful explanations and guidelines for actual practice.

5 [Different laws apply] if the residents of a courtyard who established an eruv nullified their rights in favor of a person who did not join in the eruv with them.16 [The person who did not join in the eruv] is permitted to take [articles] from his house to the courtyard, but not from the homes [of the other residents] unless [the other residents] also explicitly nullified [their rights not only to the courtyard, but also to] their homes in his favor.

[The other residents of the courtyard] are forbidden even [to take out articles] from the house [of the person who did not join in the eruv] to the courtyard.17 True, [this person’s house and the courtyard] are one domain after [the other residents of the courtyard] nullified [their rights to the courtyard] in his favor. Nevertheless, since the courtyard once [also] belonged to [the other residents], when they take out articles to [the courtyard], it is as if they are retracting their [previous nullification] and seeking to reassert ownership over [the courtyard]. It is not appropriate to say that [the other residents of the courtyard] are using [the courtyard] merely as guests, because [the principle that] many people do not become the guests of one individual [is applied with regard to an eruv]. Even if [that person] already manifested his possession over the courtyard, [that act alone] is not sufficient to prevent the many others from retracting their [nullification].

[The other residents of the courtyard] are, however, permitted to bring [articles] from the courtyard into [the person’s] house.18 [The rationale is that] it appears that [the other residents of the courtyard] are retracting their [nullification] only when they bring [articles] into a domain [that belonged to them] to which they [explicitly] nullified [their rights], i.e., into the courtyard. [By contrast,] taking [an article] from the domain [to which they explicitly nullified their rights] and bringing it into another domain does not appear as a retraction of their [nullification].

[The other residents of the courtyard] are, however, forbidden to bring [articles] from the courtyard into their own homes. [This stringency applies] even if [the other residents of the courtyard explicitly] nullified [their rights not only to the courtyard, but] to their homes as well, making the entire [enclosure] one domain belonging to [the person who did not join in the eruv]. Even so, since [the many] do not become the guests of one individual, when [the other residents of the courtyard] bring [articles] into their homes, it is as if they are retracting [their nullification] and taking back possession of their homes. Needless to say, [the other residents of the courtyard] are forbidden to take [articles] from their homes to the courtyard even if they also [explicitly] nullified [their rights] to their homes, just as they are forbidden to take [articles] from the actual house [of the person who did not join in the eruv] to the courtyard.

ה אִם בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁעֵרְבוּ מְבַטְּלִין רְשׁוּתָם לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶם16 – הוּא מֻתָּרלה לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר,לו וְלֹא מִבָּתֵּיהֶם,לז אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בִּטְּלוּ לוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ גַּם רְשׁוּת בָּתֵּיהֶם.לח

וְהֵם אֲסוּרִיםלט אֲפִלּוּ מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר.מ,17 וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרְשׁוּת אֶחָד הֵן לְאַחַר שֶׁבִּטְּלוּהוּ לוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָצֵר זוֹ הָיְתָה שֶׁלָּהֶם, אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁחוֹזְרִין וּמוֹצִיאִים לְתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּאִלּוּ חוֹזְרִים בָּהֶם וְרוֹצִים לִזְכּוֹת בָּהּ,מא שֶׁאֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁהֵם מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁים בָּהּ כְּאוֹרְחִים בְּעָלְמָא, לְפִי שֶׁהָרַבִּים לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד אֵינָן דּוֹמִין כְּאוֹרְחִים אֶצְלוֹ.מב,17 וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם כְּבָר הֶחֱזִיק הוּא בֶּחָצֵרמג – אֵין זֶה מוֹעִיל שֶׁלֹּא יוּכְלוּ הָרַבִּים לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֶם.

אֲבָל מֻתָּרִים לְהַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ,מד,18 לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נִרְאֶה חֲזָרָה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמַּכְנִיסִים לִרְשׁוּת שֶׁלָּהֶם שֶׁבִּטְּלוּהָ, דְּהַיְנוּ לֶחָצֵר, אֲבָל כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיאִים מֵרְשׁוּת זוֹ וּמַכְנִיסִים לִרְשׁוּת אַחֶרֶת – אֵין זוֹ נִרְאֵית חֲזָרָה.

אֲבָל אֲסוּרִים לְהַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבָתֵּיהֶם אֲפִלּוּ אִם בִּטְּלוּ לוֹ גַּם רְשׁוּת בָּתֵּיהֶם, שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה הַכֹּל רְשׁוּת אֶחָד שֶׁלּוֹ – מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵם אֵינָן כְּאוֹרְחִים לְגַבֵּי הַיָּחִיד, אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁמַּכְנִיסִים לְבָתֵּיהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּאִלּוּ חוֹזְרִים וְזוֹכִים בְּבָתֵּיהֶם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֲסוּרִים לְהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר אֲפִלּוּ בִּטְּלוּ לוֹ גַּם רְשׁוּת בָּתֵּיהֶם,מה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֲסוּרִים לְהוֹצִיא אֲפִלּוּ מִבֵּיתוֹ מַמָּשׁ לֶחָצֵר:

6 Similarly, when there were only two people living in a courtyard, and they did not establish an eruv, if one of them nullifies [his rights to the courtyard] in favor of the other, they are governed by the same laws as many people [who nullify their rights to their domains] in favor of one individual.19 [The rationale is that, with regard to an eruv,] even a [lone] individual does not become the guest of only one other individual, he only [becomes the guest of] many [people], and [the term] “many” refers to at least two people.

Similarly, when many people who did not join in an eruv nullify their rights [to their domains] in favor of many [others] who did join in an eruv,20it is not considered as if [those who nullified their rights to their domains] became the guests [of those who joined in the eruv. Those who nullified their rights to their domains] are [therefore] governed by the same laws as many people [who nullify the rights to their domains] in favor of [but] one individual.

ו וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם לְבָד דָּרִים בֶּחָצֵר וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ, וּבִטֵּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם לַחֲבֵרוֹ – דִּינוֹ כְּרַבִּים לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד,19 שֶׁאַף הַיָּחִיד אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹרֵחַ לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד אֶלָּא לְגַבֵּי רַבִּים, וְאֵין רַבִּים פְּחוּתִים מִשְּׁנַיִם. וְכֵן רַבִּים שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ רְשׁוּתָם לְרַבִּים שֶׁעֵרְבוּ,20 אֵינָם נַעֲשִׂים אוֹרְחִים אֶצְלָם, וְדִינָם כְּרַבִּים לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד:מו,17

7 When many people did not join in an eruv, they may nullify their rights [to their domains] both in favor of one individual who did not join in the eruv or in favor of many people who joined together in an eruv,21 provided each one of the people nullifying [his rights] nullifies [his rights] in favor of each one of the participants individually, as explained above with regard to one person who nullifies [his rights].22 However, [one] may not nullify [his rights] in favor of many people – [indeed, not] even [in favor of] two people – who did not participate in an eruv. [This restriction applies] whether there are many people who joined together in an eruv or [only] one person who did not join in an eruv who [seek to] nullify [their rights to more than one person who did not join in an eruv. The rationale is that since the people in favor of whom the rights will be nullified did not join in an eruv,] even after [the people] nullified [their rights], there will remain [at least] two people [who have rights to the courtyard], and one causes the other to be forbidden [to carry].

Even if one [of the people in favor of whom the rights were nullified] then nullifies [his rights] to the other, [this arrangement] is not effective at all.23 [The rationale is that] at the time the original [owners] nullified [their rights] to the courtyard in favor of the one who [presently seeks to] nullify his rights, that person did not have the right to be permitted to carry [in the courtyard] because [both] he and the other person(s) [who did not join in the eruv] cause each other to be forbidden [to carry]. Accordingly, [this person’s] nullification [of rights] is not effective, [because] when he [seeks to] nullify [his rights] in favor of the other person, he cannot nullify [the rights to] the domains the others [sought to nullify in his favor], since he never acquired them.

[The above applies] even when the original [owners] stipulated when nullifying [their rights], “We are nullifying [our rights to the courtyard] in favor of you on the condition that you later nullify them in favor of the other person.” Although [the original owners] granted permission for him to nullify [the rights he receives, nonetheless, his nullification] is not effective at all. Since [the person] did not acquire the rights [to the other people’s share in the courtyard] in a manner that would enable him to carry in the courtyard, he cannot transfer [these rights] to the other person.

ז רַבִּים שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ יְכוֹלִים לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתָםמז,17 בֵּין לְיָחִיד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב בֵּין לְרַבִּים שֶׁעֵרְבוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם,מח,21 וּבִלְבָד שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהַמְבַטְּלִים יְבַטֵּל לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְמַעְלָהמט בְּיָחִיד הַמְבַטֵּל.22 אֲבָל לְרַבִּים שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ, אֲפִלּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ – אֵין מְבַטְּלִין לָהֶם,נ,17 בֵּין שֶׁהַמְבַטְּלִים הֵם רַבִּים שֶׁעֵרְבוּ בֵּין שֶׁהוּא יָחִיד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב, שֶׁהֲרֵי אַף לְאַחַר שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ לָהֶם הֵם שְׁנַיִם, וְאֶחָד אוֹסֵר עַל חֲבֵרוֹ.נא

וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם חָזַר הָאֶחָד וּבִטֵּל לַחֲבֵרוֹ – אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם,נב,23 שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הֶחָצֵר לְזֶה הַחוֹזֵר וּמְבַטֵּל לֹא הָיָה לוֹ אָז בָּהּ זְכוּת שֶׁל הֶתֵּר טִלְטוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹסְרִים זֶה עַל זֶה, אִם כֵּן בִּטּוּל זֶה לֹא הוֹעִיל כְּלוּם, וּכְשֶׁחוֹזֵר וּמְבַטֵּל לְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת שֶׁלָּהֶם, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא זָכוּ בָּהּ.נג וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּשֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ לוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אָמְרוּ לוֹ "אָנוּ מְבַטְּלִים לְךָ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתַּחֲזוֹר וּתְבַטֵּל לַחֲבֵרְךָ", שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהֶם רְשׁוּת לְבַטֵּל לוֹ – אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם,נד,21 שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בְּחֵלֶק שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ לוֹ בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיּוּכַל לְטַלְטֵל בֶּחָצֵר, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַקְנוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ:נה