SECTION 381 The Laws [Governing] One Who Nullifies [His Rights] to His Domain and then Transgresses and Brings [an Article] Out [to that Domain] (1-7)

סימן שפא דִּינֵי הַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ וְעָבַר וְהוֹצִיא וּבוֹ ז' סְעִיפִים:

1 One1 who nullifies his rights [to his domain] and then transgresses2 and brings [an article] out from his house to the courtyard3 in unknowing violation of the prohibition does not cause [the other residents] to be forbidden [to carry in the courtyard. If the person] does so in conscious violation of the prohibition, he causes [carrying] to be forbidden [in the courtyard],4 because he is retracting his nullification of his rights to his portion of the courtyard that he nullified in favor [of the other residents]. In this instance, we do not apply the principle, “Since license [to carry was] granted for [this] Shabbos, the license remains.”5 [The rationale is that, as evidenced by the person’s] retraction, he certainly did not [ever] entirely divert his attention from [his rights] initially. Hence, [in truth,] license [to carry] on Shabbos was never granted.

[The person] is only considered to have retracted [his nullification] when he takes [articles] out from his house to the courtyard. [The person’s] taking [articles] from the courtyard into his house is not considered a retraction. [On the contrary, it can be explained that] since [the person] nullified [his rights] to the courtyard in favor [of the other residents], he is removing his articles from [the courtyard] to his home. [Hence, the person] does not cause [those other residents] to be forbidden [to carry] by bringing these articles in. (Nevertheless, [the person is erring]. He is forbidden to bring [articles] from the courtyard to the house because his house is exclusively his, while the courtyard is [entirely] theirs. Thus, [the person] is transferring [articles] from a domain [to which many have rights] to [one whose rights belong to] another person.)6

When does the above apply? When [the person] only nullified his rights to the courtyard. If, however, [the person] also nullified his rights to his home and then brought [articles] into his home from the courtyard, he has retracted his nullification [of his rights] to his house and causes [the other residents of the courtyard] to be forbidden [to carry in the courtyard].7

All of the above applies when [the person] takes out or brings in [articles] to and from the domain [to which] he nullified [his rights] before the others manifested their possession of [that domain]. For example, [the person only] nullified his rights to the courtyard8 in favor of the other [residents of the courtyard, and he took out articles from his home to the courtyard or bought in articles from the courtyard to his home] before [the other residents] took [articles] from their homes to the courtyard or brought [articles] from the courtyard to their homes. Or [the person] also nullified his rights to his home in their favor [and he took out or bought in articles] before [the other residents] took [articles] from his home to the courtyard or brought [articles] from the courtyard to his home.9 However, once [the other residents] manifested possession of [the person’s] domain, whether by merely taking [articles] in or taking [them] out, he cannot retract [his nullification].

[In this aspect, there is a difference between the owner’s bringing articles from the courtyard to his home and other residents doing so. When the owner] brings articles from the courtyard to his home, he is not considered as manifesting possession so that he retracted [the nullification] and manifested possession [of the courtyard]. Nevertheless, [when the other residents] bring in articles from the courtyard to his home, they are considered as having manifested their possession with regard to [the owner’s] inability to retract [his nullification. The rationale is that] whenever [the other residents] perform an act in [the person’s] domain that they would have been forbidden to perform had he not nullified [his rights] in their favor, they have manifested their possession [of that domain. Hence, his desire to] retract [his nullification of his rights over this domain] does not cause [the other residents] to be forbidden [to carry].

[The person,] however, is forbidden to take [articles] in and out [between his home and] the courtyard even after [the other residents] have manifested possession of [the courtyard], unless [the person] also nullified his rights to his home in their favor. [Doing so is then permitted, for after nullifying his rights to his home, the person] becomes their guest in a complete sense, as stated in sec. 380[:3].

[The other residents of the courtyard can] only manifest their possession [of the person’s domain(s) effectively] after nightfall.10 Their taking out and bringing in [articles] while it is still day [on Friday] is not proof that the rights [to the domain] are theirs, for even if [the owner] had not nullified [his rights] in favor of them, they would have been permitted to take out and bring in [articles] while it is still day [on Friday].11

There are authorities who maintain that manifestation of possession while it is still day [on Friday] is also effective [with regard to preventing the person from retracting his nullification] even though it is not outright proof [of the other residents’ ownership], provided they [manifest their possession of the domain(s)] after [the person] nullified [his rights]. ([In practice,] as an initial preference, one should follow the stringency of the first opinion. After the fact, the lenient ruling may be followed [since the matter concerns a point of] Rabbinic Law).

א הַמְבַטֵּל1 רְשׁוּתוֹ וְעָבַרא,2 וְהוֹצִיא אַחַר כָּךְ מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר,3 בְּשׁוֹגֵג – אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר, בְּמֵזִיד – אוֹסֵר,ב,4 שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹזֵר בּוֹ מִבִּטּוּלוֹג שֶׁבִּטֵּל לָהֶם חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים כַּאן "שַׁבָּת כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֻתְּרָה הֻתְּרָה",5 שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁחוֹזֵר בּוֹ, אִם כֵּן בְּוַדַּאי לֹא הִסִּיחַ לִבּוֹ לְגַמְרֵי מִתְּחִלָּה, וְלֹא הֻתְּרָה שַׁבָּת מֵעוֹלָם.ד

וְאֵינָהּ נִקְרֵאת חֲזָרָה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר. אֲבָל אִם מַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ – אֵין זוֹ חֲזָרָה,ה שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבִּטֵּל לָהֶם הֶחָצֵר, מְפַנֶּה הוּא אֶת חֲפָצָיו מִמֶּנָּה לַבַּיִת, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם בְּהַכְנָסָה זוֹ (אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם אָסוּר לוֹ לְהַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לַבַּיִת, שֶׁהֲרֵי בֵּיתוֹ מְיֻחָד לוֹ וְהֶחָצֵר לָהֶם, וְנִמְצָא מוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּתו).6

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁלֹּא בִטֵּל לָהֶם אֶלָּא רְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר בִּלְבָד. אֲבָל אִם בִּטֵּל לָהֶם גַּם רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ וְהִכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לַבַּיִת – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָרָה מִבִּטּוּל הַבַּיִת, וְאוֹסְרוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם.ז,7

וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיא אוֹ מַכְנִיס קֹדֶם שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ הֵם בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁבִּטֵּל,ח,4 כְּגוֹן קֹדֶם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר אוֹ הִכְנִיסוּ מֵחָצֵר לְבָתֵּיהֶם כְּשֶׁבִּטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר,8 אוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר אוֹ מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ כְּשֶׁבִּטֵּל לָהֶם גַּם רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ.9 אֲבָל לְאַחַר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, בֵּין בְּהוֹצָאָה לְבַדָּהּ בֵּין בְּהַכְנָסָה לְבַדָּהּט – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכְנָסָה אֵינָהּ נִקְרֵאת חֲזָקָה לְעִנְיַן חֲזָרָה, שֶׁאֵין זֶה חוֹזֵר וּמַחֲזִיק בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ כְּשֶׁמַּכְנִיס מִמֶּנּוּ חֲפָצָיו לְבֵיתוֹ,י אַף עַל פִּי כֵן נִקְרֵאת חֲזָקָה לְעִנְיָן שֶׁלֹּא יוּכַל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ,יא שֶׁכֹּל שֶׁעָשׂוּ דָבָר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ אֲסוּרִים לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ אִם לֹא בִטְּלָהּ לָהֶם – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה,יב וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁחוֹזֵר בּוֹ.

אֲבָל הוּא אָסוּר לְהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא בֶּחָצֵריג אַף לְאַחַר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בִּטֵּל לָהֶם גַּם רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁאָז נַעֲשֶׂה כְּאוֹרֵחַ גָּמוּר אֶצְלָם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"פ.יד

וְאֵין חֲזָקָה מוֹעֶלֶת אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁכָה10. אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁמּוֹצִיאִים וּמַכְנִיסִים מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם – אֵין זוֹ הוֹכָחָה שֶׁהִיא רְשׁוּת שֶׁלָּהֶם,טו שֶׁהֲרֵי אַף אִם לֹא בִטְּלָהּ לָהֶם הָיוּ רַשָּׁאִים לְהוֹצִיא וּלְהַכְנִיס מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.טז,11 וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםיז שֶׁאַף חֲזָקָה שֶׁמִּבְּעוֹד יוֹם מוֹעֶלֶת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוֹכַחַת, וּבִלְבָד שֶׁתְּהֵא אַחַר הַבִּטּוּל (וְיֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כִּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה,יח וּבְדִיעֲבַד יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִיםיט):

2 [The concept of] nullifying one’s rights [to his domain] also applies with regard to [the residents of two adjoining] courtyards12 even though [the presence of] one does not cause [the residents of] the other [courtyard] to be forbidden [to carry]. For example, there were two courtyards with an entrance between them.13 [The residents of] each of the courtyards established an eruv for themselves, but they did not establish a joint eruv. [The residents of] each [of the courtyards] may nullify their rights [to their domain] in favor of [the residents of] the other [courtyard], allowing [the residents of] that [other courtyard] to be permitted to make use of [their courtyard] while [those who nullified their rights] may not.

Needless to say, [the above applies] if [the presence of the residents of] one [courtyard] causes [the residents of] the other to be forbidden [to carry]. For example, there were two courtyards, one located behind the other.14 [The residents of] the outer [courtyard] established an eruv only among themselves, while [the residents of] the inner [courtyard] did not establish an eruv at all. [Hence, their presence] causes [the residents of] the outer [courtyard] to be forbidden [to carry], as explained in sec. 378[:2. The residents of the inner courtyard] may nullify the rights they have to use [the outer courtyard] and pass through it, [i.e., they] will not use [the outer courtyard] or pass through it except at the times they must depart and enter [the lane or public domain to and from their courtyard. In such an instance, the residents of] the outer [courtyard] are permitted to use their courtyard even though [the residents of] the inner [courtyard] pass through it when they must depart and enter. [The rationale is that the fact that others have the right] to pass through a domain does not cause [its residents] to be forbidden [to carry. That is true] only when [others who are not residents of the domain are permitted] to use it to perform their tasks. The intent of the statement that [the residents of] the inner [courtyard] cause [carrying] to be forbidden [in the outer courtyard] when their feet pass through the outer [courtyard]15 is not that their feet treading within and passing through the outer courtyard alone causes [carrying] to be forbidden there. [The residents of the inner courtyard’s] passage through [the outer courtyard] causes carrying to be forbidden there only when [they] use [the courtyard] in the same manner that [people who live in] a house [within that courtyard] use the courtyard for their needs. [Only then are the residents of the inner courtyard comparable to residents of] houses [in the outer courtyard] who did not join together in an eruv, and therefore [make carrying within the courtyard] forbidden. Therefore, when [the residents of the inner courtyard] nullify their rights and do not use [the outer courtyard] on Shabbos, they do not cause [carrying] to be forbidden there even though they [continue to] pass through [the outer courtyard].16

Similarly, if [the residents of] the inner and outer [courtyards] joined together in a common eruv, but one of [the residents of] the inner [courtyard] forgot and did not join [in the eruv, the residents of] both [courtyards] are forbidden [to carry], as explained in [sec. 378:2. Nevertheless, the person who forgot to join in the eruv] may nullify his rights [to the inner courtyard] in favor of the others [and thus enable them to carry. For his nullification to be valid, the person] must nullify his rights in favor of each [resident] of the inner [courtyard] and each [resident] of the outer [courtyard]. In such an instance, he alone is forbidden [to carry], but all [the other residents of both courtyards] are permitted [to carry].

However, if [the person] only nullified [his rights] in favor of [the residents of] the inner [courtyard], even [the residents of] the inner [courtyard] are forbidden [to carry in both courtyards], since the presence [of the residents] of the outer [courtyard] cause them to be forbidden [to carry]. True, [the residents of] the outer [courtyard] do not have an inherent right to pass through [the inner courtyard].17 Nevertheless, the eruv that [the residents of the outer courtyard] established with [the residents of the inner courtyard] draws them to [the inner courtyard]. It is as if [the residents of the outer courtyard] are living [in the inner courtyard], because an eruv establishes [a place] as if it were one’s dwelling.18

If, [by contrast,] one of the [the residents of] the outer [courtyard] forgot and did not join in the eruv, it is not necessary for [that person] to nullify [his rights] in favor of [the residents of the] inner [courtyard.19 The rationale is that] even if [the residents of] the outer [courtyard] did not establish an eruv at all, but rather [the residents of] the inner [courtyard established an eruv] alone, the presence [of the residents] of the outer [courtyard] does not cause [the residents of the] inner [courtyard] to be forbidden [to carry], since [the residents of] the outer [courtyard] do not have the right to pass through [the inner courtyard.

In this instance,] the eruv that [the residents of the outer courtyard] established with [the residents of the inner courtyard] does not draw them to [the inner courtyard], because [the residents of the inner courtyard] can tell [the residents of the outer courtyard]: “We had you join together with us [in the eruv] only for our benefit, not for our detriment.”20 By contrast, when one of [the residents of] the inner [courtyard] forgot and did not join in the eruv, this option is not available, because the impairing factor comes from one of [the residents of the inner courtyard].

ב יֵשׁ בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵרכ,12 אֲפִלּוּ אֵינָן אוֹסְרוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ, כְּגוֹן ב' חֲצֵרוֹת וּפֶתַח בֵּינֵיהֶן,13 וְעֵרְבָה כָּל אַחַת לְעַצְמָהּכא וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ יַחַד – יְכוֹלָה כָּל אַחַת לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתָהּ לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, שֶׁתְּהֵא חֲבֶרְתָּהּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ וְלֹא הִיא.כב

וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם אוֹסְרוֹת זוֹ עַל זוֹ,כג,12 כְּגוֹן ב' חֲצֵרוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹכד,14 וְעֵרְבָה הַחִיצוֹנָה לְבַדָּהּ וְהַפְּנִימִית לֹא עֵרְבָה כְּלָל,כה שֶׁאוֹסֶרֶת הִיא עַל הַחִיצוֹנָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שע"חכו – יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְבַטֵּל לָהּ רְשׁוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בָּהּ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ וְלִדְרוֹס בָּהּ, שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ וְלֹא תַעֲבוֹר עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה לָצֵאת וְלָבֹא, וְתִהְיֶה הַחִיצוֹנָה מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצֵרָהּ,כז אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַפְּנִימִים עוֹבְרִים עָלֶיהָ כְּשֶׁצְּרִיכִים לָצֵאת וְלָבֹא, (וְ)הַעֲבָרָה לְבַדָּהּ אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמְּשִׁים שָׁם לַעֲשׂוֹת צָרְכֵיהֶם. שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁהַפְּנִימִית אוֹסֶרֶת בִּדְרִיסַת רַגְלָהּ עַל חִיצוֹנָה15 – אֵין הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁדְּרִיסַת וְהַעֲבָרַת הָרֶגֶל בִּלְבַדָּהּ תֶּאֱסוֹר, אֶלָּא דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל כְּשֶׁדּוֹרֶסֶת שָׁם וּמִשְׁתַּמֶּשֶׁת בִּצְרָכֶיהָ בְּדֶרֶךְ תַּשְׁמִישׁ הֶחָצֵר לְבָתִּים הִיא אוֹסֶרֶת אוֹתָהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאוֹסְרִים אוֹתָהּ הַבָּתִּים שֶׁבָּהּ אִם לֹא עֵרְבוּ בָּהּ. וְלָכֵן כְּשֶׁבִּטְּלָה לָהּ זְכוּת זֶה וְאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּשֶׁת בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת – אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת אוֹתָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעוֹבֶרֶת עָלֶיהָ.כח,16

וְכֵן אִם עֵרְבוּ הַפְּנִימִית וְהַחִיצוֹנָה בְּיַחַד, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵרֵב, שֶׁשְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם – יָכוֹל הוּא לְבַטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ,כט וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהַפְּנִימִית וּלְכָל אֶחָד מֵהַחִיצוֹנָה,ל,12 וְאָז הוּא לְבַדּוֹ אָסוּר וְכֻלָּם מֻתָּרִים.לא אֲבָל אִם לֹא בִטֵּל אֶלָּא לְהַפְּנִימִית – אַף הַפְּנִימִית אֲסוּרָה, שֶׁהַחִיצוֹנָה אוֹסַרְתָּהּ.לב,12 וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְהַחִיצוֹנָה דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל עָלֶיהָ,17 מִכָּל מָקוֹם הָעֵרוּב שֶׁעֵרְבָה עִמָּהּ מַרְגִּילָהּ לְתוֹכָהּלג וּכְאִלּוּ הִיא דָרָה בָּהּ, שֶׁעֵרוּב מִשּׁוּם דִּירָה.לד,18

אֲבָל אִם שָׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא עֵרֵב – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְהַפְּנִימִית,19 שֶׁאַף אִם לֹא עֵרְבָה הַחִיצוֹנָה כְּלָל אֶלָּא הַפְּנִימִית לְבַדָּהּ, אֵין הַחִיצוֹנָה אוֹסֶרֶת אֶת הַפְּנִימִית, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל עָלֶיהָ,17 וְאֵין הָעֵרוּב מַרְגִּילָהּ לְתוֹכָהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לוֹמַר לָהּ "לְתִקּוּנֵי שִׁתַּפְתִּיךָ עִמִּי וְלֹא לְעִוּוּתֵי".לה,20 מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁשָּׁכַח אֶחָד מִן הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא עֵרֵב, אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לוֹמַר כֵּן כֵּיוָן שֶׁהָעִוּוּת הוּא מִמֶּנָּה:לו

3 [The concept of] nullifying one’s rights also applies to a ruin.21 [To illustrate this concept:] There were two houses and a ruin between them, which [the owners of the houses] jointly owned, (or it did not belong to [the owner of] either [house], but was used by both [owners] without difficulty, in which instance, they cause each other to be forbidden [to use the ruin on Shabbos], as stated in sec. 376[:3]). [If the owners of the homes] forgot and did not establish an eruv, one [of the homeowners] can nullify [his rights to the ruin] in favor of the other, [causing the other homeowner] to be permitted [to carry] in [the ruin. Here, too, the Sages applied the leniency of nullifying one’s rights]; we do not say that the Sages allowed the leniency of nullifying one’s rights only [with regard] to a courtyard [located] in front of homes, which is the primary place [that a person will] use.

ג יֵשׁ בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת בְּחֻרְבָּה.לז,21 שֶׁאִם הָיוּ ב' בָּתִּים וְחֻרְבָּה בֵּינֵיהֶםלח שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶםלט (אוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲבָל שְׁנֵיהֶם מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁים בָּהּ בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ נוֹחַ, שֶׁהֵם אוֹסְרִים זֶה עַל זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שע"ומ), וְשָׁכְחוּ וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ – יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְבַטֵּל לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִהְיוֹתוֹ מֻתָּר בָּהּ. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁלֹּא הֵקֵלּוּ חֲכָמִים בְּבִטּוּל רְשׁוּת אֶלָּא בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַבָּתִּים שֶׁבָּהּ הוּא עִקַּר תַּשְׁמִישָׁם:מא

4 [The concept of] nullifying one’s rights [also applies] from one house to another. [To illustrate this principle:] There were two houses that opened to each other, but [their owners] did not join in an eruv. One of [the homeowners] may nullify his rights to his house in favor of the other. [Afterwards,] even the one who nullified [his rights] is permitted to take [articles] out from his home to the other person’s home. [The rationale is that] everything belongs to the other person since [the first homeowner] has nullified [his rights] to [the other homeowner].22

[The person who nullified his rights] may take [articles] from his own house to the other person’s house even before that person manifested his possession over the house [that was nullified to him. This instance] does not resemble one in which a person nullifies his rights to his courtyard, in which instance, [the person who nullified his rights] may not take [articles] from his house to the courtyard, even when he also nullified his rights to his home, unless the recipients manifest their possession [over the courtyard] first. [Moreover, in that situation,] even when [the other residents of the courtyard] manifest their possession, [the nullification] is effective only when one person nullifies [his rights] in favor of many [people], but not when one person nullifies [his rights] in favor of [but] one individual, as stated in sec. 380[:6].

[The rationale for the distinction is that the person] had rights to the courtyard, but he [merely] nullified [his rights] in favor of [the other residents of the courtyard]. Thus, when the person takes out [an article] from his house to the courtyard it appears that he is retracting his nullification and asserting his possession over his portion of the courtyard. Therefore, it is necessary that the others first assert their possession [over the courtyard]. Then, [the person who nullified his rights] becomes the guest [of the other residents of the courtyard. All this applies] if [there] are many [other residents of the courtyard], but not when one person [nullified his rights in favor of] one [other] individual. In contrast, when a person takes [an article from his home] to the home of the other person, in which he never owned a portion – and thus, to which he never nullified his rights23 – it does not appear as if he is retracting [his nullification] and asserting his ownership over his property by taking [this article] out.24

ד יֵשׁ בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת. שֶׁאִם הָיוּ ב' בָּתִּים פְּתוּחִים זֶה לְזֶה וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ יַחַד – אֶחָד מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הַמְבַטֵּל מֻתָּר לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לְבֵית חֲבֵרוֹ,מב שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכֹּל שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ,מג כֵּיוָן שֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ לוֹ.22 וַאֲפִלּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק חֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵיתוֹ יָכוֹל הוּא לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לְבֵית חֲבֵרוֹ.מד

וְאֵינוֹ דוֹמֶה לְהַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵרוֹ, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר, אֲפִלּוּ בִּטֵּל גַּם רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ, עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִיקוּ הֵם תְּחִלָּה, וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הֶחֱזִיקוּ אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל אֶלָּא בְּיָחִיד שֶׁבִּטֵּל לְרַבִּים, אֲבָל לֹא בְּיָחִיד לְיָחִיד, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"פמה – לְפִי שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חֵלֶק בֶּחָצֵר אֶלָּא שֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ לָהֶם, אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר נִרְאֶה כְּחוֹזֵר מִבִּטּוּלוֹ וּמַחֲזִיק בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר, וְלָכֵן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּחֲזִיקוּ הֵם תְּחִלָּה, וְאָז נַעֲשֶׂה הוּא כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם אִם הֵם רַבִּים, אֲבָל לֹא יָחִיד אֵצֶל יָחִיד. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיא לְבֵית חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ בּוֹ חֵלֶק מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא בִטְּלוֹ23 – אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כְּחוֹזֵר וּמַחֲזִיק בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּהוֹצָאָה זוֹ:מו,24

5 Nevertheless, [in the above situation, the person who nullified his rights to his home] may not bring [an article] from the other person’s home to his home, for when he brings [an article] into his home, it appears that he is retracting [his nullification] and asserting his ownership over his property. Even if the other person already manifested his possession [over the house], that is not effective in enabling [the one who nullified his home to bring an article in. The rationale is that the one who nullified his home] does not become the guest of [the person in whose favor the house was nullified] because [this is a situation where only two individuals are involved] and one individual [does not become a guest of] another individual.25

If [the person nullified his rights to his house in favor of many people and thus, the relationship is between] one and many,26 he should still not bring [articles] from their homes to his house until they first manifest their possession over his house.

If [the person who nullified his rights to his house also] has a room opening to his house, and he nullified his rights to his [entire] house except for this room, he is forbidden to take [articles] from this room to his house. [The rationale is that] the room belongs exclusively to [the person who nullified his rights], while the house belongs to the other person. Thus, [the person who nullified his rights] is transferring [articles] from one domain to another. Even if [the situation is one in which an individual nullified his rights to his house in favor of many people and thus, the situation is that of] one person in relation to many, [nevertheless, the person who nullified his rights] is not considered their guest with regard to taking out and bringing in articles from [this] room to the house, just like one who nullifies his rights to his courtyard but not his rights to his house is not [considered] a guest in relation to the others with regard to taking out and bringing in [articles] from [his] house to the courtyard, as explained in sec. 380[:2].

[The person who nullifies his rights to his home] may, however, bring [articles] from [the other people’s] homes to his home even before they manifest possession over his house,27 just like one who nullifies his rights to his courtyard may take [articles] from the houses of the other [residents of the courtyard] before they manifest their possession over [the courtyard]. For it only [appears that the person is] retracting [his nullification] when he brings articles out from his house, but not [when he brings them out] from [the] homes [of the other residents of the courtyard].

There are authorities who maintain that one may not nullify his rights to his house [in favor of the owner of another] house unless he retains [at least] one room for himself over which he does nullify his rights. [The rationale for this stringency is a] concern [that this] is necessary lest [people] whose homes open up to each other’s forget the laws of eruvin.28[For instead of establishing an eruv,] the owners of all these homes will nullify their rights in favor of one person, and then all [the residents] will be permitted to take [articles] from their homes to homes belonging to others. [All the residents of these houses] will [be able to do so, since they will] not appear to be retracting [their nullification] and maintaining possession over their homes by taking [these articles] out.29 By contrast, when a person retains one room [for himself], it is forbidden for him to take articles from [that room] to the house. If, however, there would be an eruv, [the person] would be permitted [to take articles from that room to the house]. Thus, [since] the eruv would be of [significant] benefit to [one nullifying his rights], there is no reason to be concerned that everyone will nullify [their rights over their homes and thus cause] the laws of eruvin to be forgotten.

Fundamentally, the halachah follows the first opinion. [The rationale is that] the person still benefits from an eruv even if he does not retain possession of a room, because it allows him to bring [articles] into his home from the home of the person in whose favor he nullified the rights to his home. [Without the eruv,] this would be forbidden to [the person who nullified the rights to his home] even after the other person manifested possession if it is [but] one person [who nullified his rights] to [but one] other individual. Needless to say, [this applies] when there are many [people who nullify their rights] to one individual.30 Even so, as an initial preference, it is desirable to be stringent and retain [possession of] one room [when nullifying the rights to one’s home].

5 31 Nullifying [one’s rights] takes the place of establishing an eruv while it is still day [on Friday]. Accordingly, in a place where [the residents] may not establish an eruv while it is still day [on Friday], they may not nullify [their rights] after nightfall [on Shabbos].32 For example, there were two houses on two [opposite] sides of a public domain. Non-Jews surrounded [the houses] with a partition on Shabbos, [creating an enclosure]33 similar to a courtyard between [two houses] to which both houses open. [In such an instance, the owners of the houses] cause each other to be forbidden [to carry within the enclosure].34 [The residents of the homes] may not nullify their rights to each other, since they were not able to establish an eruv while it was still day [on Friday].35

ה אֲבָל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַכְנִיס מִבֵּית חֲבֵרוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ, שֶׁכְּשֶׁמַּכְנִיס לְבֵיתוֹ נִרְאֶה כְּחוֹזֵר וּמַחֲזִיק בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.מז וַאֲפִלּוּ הֶחֱזִיק בּוֹ כְּבָר חֲבֵרוֹ – אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל לְהַתִּיר גַּם לוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָחִיד אֵצֶל יָחִיד.מח,25 וְאִם הוּא יָחִיד אֵצֶל רַבִּים26 – עַל כָּל פָּנִים לֹא יַכְנִיס לְבֵיתוֹ מִבָּתֵּיהֶם עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִיקוּ הֵם תְּחִלָּה בְּבֵיתוֹ.מט

וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ חֶדֶר פָּתוּחַ לְבֵיתוֹ,נ וּבִטֵּל רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ בִּלְבָד בְּלִי הַחֶדֶרנא – אָסוּר לְהוֹצִיא מֵהַחֶדֶר לְבֵיתוֹ, שֶׁהַחֶדֶר מְיֻחָד לוֹ, וְהַבַּיִת – לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְנִמְצָא מוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא יָחִיד אֵצֶל רַבִּים – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם לְעִנְיַן הוֹצָאָה וְהַכְנָסָה מֵחֶדֶר לְבַיִת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵרוֹ וְלֹא רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם לְעִנְיַן הוֹצָאָה וְהַכְנָסָה מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"פ.נב

אֲבָל יָכוֹל לְהַכְנִיס מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לְבֵיתוֹנג אֲפִלּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ הֵם בְּבֵיתוֹ,27 כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵרוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּחֲזִיקוּ הֵם, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְרֵאת חֲזָרָה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמּוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא מִבָּתֵּיהֶם.נד

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםנה שֶׁאֵין לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יַשְׁאִיר לְעַצְמוֹ חֶדֶר אֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא יְבַטְּלֶנּוּ, לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרַת עֵרוּבנו,28 מִבָּתִּים אֵלּוּ הַפְּתוּחִים זֶה לְזֶה, שֶׁכֻּלָּם יְבַטְּלוּם בַּעֲלֵיהֶם לְאֶחָד, וְגַם הֵם יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִים לְהוֹצִיא כָּל אֶחָד מִבֵּיתוֹ לְבֵית חֲבֵרוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כְּחוֹזֵר וּמַחֲזִיק בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּהוֹצָאָה זוֹ.29 מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁמַּשְׁאִיר חֶדֶר אֶחָד שֶׁאָסוּר לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לַבַּיִת, וְאִם הָיָה עֵרוּב הָיָה מֻתָּר – נִמְצָא מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הוּא בָּעֵרוּב, וְשׁוּב אֵין לָחוּשׁ שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ הַכֹּל וְתִשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרַת עֵרוּב.

וְהָעִקָּר כִּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה,נז שֶׁהֲרֵי אַף אִם אֵינוֹ מַשְׁאִיר שׁוּם חֶדֶר – מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הוּא בָּעֵרוּב, שֶׁיְּהֵא מֻתָּר לוֹ לְהַכְנִיס לְבֵיתוֹ מִבֵּית חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבִּטֵּל לוֹ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁאָסוּר לוֹ עַכְשָׁונח אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בּוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ אִם הוּא יָחִיד אֵצֶל יָחִיד, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר רַבִּים אֵצֶל יָחִיד.30 וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן טוֹב לְהַחֲמִיר לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְהַשְׁאִיר חֶדֶר אֶחָד:נט

ה 31 הַבִּטּוּל הוּא בִּמְקוֹם עֵרוּב שֶׁמִּבְּעוֹד יוֹם. לְפִיכָךְ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לְעָרֵב מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, אֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לְבַטֵּל מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ.ס,32 כְּגוֹן ב' בָּתִּים בב' צִדֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִקִּיפוּם נָכְרִים מְחִצָּה בְּשַׁבָּת,סא,33 בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ חָצֵר שֶׁב' בָּתִּים אֵלּוּ פְּתוּחִים לָהּ,סב וַהֲרֵי הֵם אוֹסְרִים זֶה עַל זֶה34 – אֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לְבַטֵּל אֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לְעָרֵב מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם:סג,35

6 By contrast, when a person inherits a house on Shabbos and enters it to live in it – [in which instance,] he causes the residents of the courtyard to be forbidden [to carry] when his testator did not establish an eruv with them36 – [the heir] may nullify [his rights] to [the other residents of the courtyard]37 even though he could not have joined in the eruv with them while it was still day [on Friday,] since he was not living in this house at that time. Nevertheless, [since] an heir takes the place of the testator38 and the testator could have joined the eruv, [the heir as well] may nullify his rights [on Shabbos].

ו אֲבָל מִי שֶׁיָּרַשׁ בַּיִת בְּשַׁבָּתסד וְנִכְנַס לָדוּר בּוֹ, שֶׁאוֹסֵר הוּא עַל בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר, כְּגוֹן שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶםסה הַמּוֹרִישׁ36 – יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ.37 וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה יָכוֹל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הָיָה דָר בְּבַיִת זֶה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, מִכָּל מָקוֹם, הַיּוֹרֵשׁ – בִּמְקוֹם מוֹרִישׁוֹ הוּא עוֹמֵד,סו,38 וַהֲרֵי מוֹרִישׁוֹ הָיָה יָכוֹל לְעָרֵב, לָכֵן יָכוֹל הוּא לְבַטֵּל:

7 People may nullify [their rights to their property], retract [their nullification], and nullify [their rights again],39 i.e., the residents of one courtyard may nullify [their rights to their courtyard] in favor of the residents of another courtyard who established an eruv among themselves40 or in favor of one of the residents of their courtyard41 until they take out whatever they desire to take out. Afterwards, [the people] can reverse [their roles]; the others may nullify their rights in favor of those who [previously] nullified their rights until they too take out whatever they desire to take out.

If, however, [the people] did not [reverse their roles, those who nullified their rights] would not be permitted to take out anything [from their homes to the courtyard] even when they also nullified their rights to their homes. [The rationale is that] they are many people and [in the context of the laws of eruvin], many people do not become guests, as stated in sec. 380[:5].

ז מְבַטְּלִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְבַטְּלִין.סז,39 כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁמְּבַטְּלִין רְשׁוּתָן בְּנֵי חָצֵר זוֹ לִבְנֵי חָצֵר אַחֶרֶת שֶׁעֵרְבָה לְעַצְמָן,40 אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חָצֵר,41 עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, וְחוֹזְרִים וּמְבַטְּלִים רְשׁוּתָם לְאוֹתָם שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ לָהֶם עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ גַם הֵם מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ.סח אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיוּ חוֹזְרִים וּמְבַטְּלִים לָהֶם – לֹא הָיוּ מֻתָּרִים לְהוֹצִיא אֲפִלּוּ בִּטְּלוּ גַּם רְשׁוּת בָּתֵּיהֶם, הוֹאִיל וְהֵם רַבִּים וְאֵינָם נַעֲשִׂים אוֹרְחִים,סט כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש"פ:ע