SECTION 383 [Renting the Rights of] a Non-Jew is Not Required When He is Not at Home [on Shabbos] (1-3)

סימן שפג כְּשֶׁאֵין הַנָּכְרִי בַּבַּיִת אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב וּבוֹ ג' סְעִיפִים:

1 When a non-Jew lives together with two Jews in one courtyard,1 but [neither] the non-Jew (nor any member of his household) is at home [on Shabbos], carrying in the courtyard is not forbidden because of him.2 [The Jews] should establish an eruv and [then] they will be permitted [to carry, even without renting the non-Jew’s rights]. Even if [the non-Jew] travelled to a nearby location from which it is possible for him to return to his house on Shabbos, [the non-Jew’s] dwelling does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden as long as he is not at home. [The rationale is that] a dwelling whose owner is not present is not considered a dwelling, as stated in sec. 371[:1].

If the non-Jew arrives on Shabbos, he [causes] carrying [to be forbidden] and the eruv is nullified.3 We do not apply the principle:4 Since license [to carry was] granted for [this] Shabbos, the license remains.5 [The rationale is that] at the time [carrying] became permitted, it was not certain that it would not be forbidden [to carry] again, because it was possible that the non-Jew would return on Shabbos.6The only exception [to the above] is when the non-Jew definitively made it clear at the commencement of the Shabbos that he did not intend to return to his house on Shabbos, and did not change his mind [about returning] until afterwards.

א נָכְרִי הַדָּר עִם שְׁנֵי יִשְׂרְאֵלִים בְּחָצֵר אַחַת,1 וְאֵין הַנָּכְרִי בְּבֵיתוֹא (וְלֹא שׁוּם אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי בֵיתוֹב) – אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר,2 וִיעָרְבוּ וְיִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הָלַךְ לְמָקוֹם קָרוֹב, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר לְבֵיתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּבֵיתוֹ אֵין דִּירָתוֹ אוֹסֶרֶת,ג שֶׁדִּירָה בְּלֹא בְעָלִים אֵינָהּ דִּירָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שע"א.ד

וְאִם בָּא הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת – אוֹסֵר,ה וְהָעֵרוּב בָּטֵל.ו,3 וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים4 "שַׁבָּת כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֻתְּרָה הֻתְּרָה",ז,5 הוֹאִיל וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהֻתְּרָה לֹא הָיָה הַדָּבָר בָּרוּר שֶׁלֹּא תַחֲזוֹר וְתֵאָסֵר, כִּי שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת,ח,6 אִם לֹא שֶׁיָּדוּעַ בְּבֵרוּר מִדַּעַת הַנָּכְרִי בִּכְנִיסַת שַׁבָּת שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה אָז בְּדַעְתּוֹ לַחֲזוֹר לְבֵיתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְנִמְלַךְ אַחַר כָּךְ:ט

2 Even if [the Jews] desire to rent [the non-Jew’s rights] after he returns on Shabbos, [doing so] is not effective [in permitting carrying. Instead,] carrying is permitted only [in the following manner]: One [Jew] rents [the non-Jew’s rights]7 and then [the other Jew, or Jews,] nullifies [his rights, or their rights,] in favor [of the Jew who rented the non-Jew’s rights.8 Then, the Jew who rented the rights] is permitted [to carry]. The eruv, however, does not automatically become valid again9 when [the Jew] rents [the non-Jew’s rights], because it was nullified immediately upon [the non-Jew’s] arrival. [This situation] is not comparable to one in which [people travelling on] ships that were tied together while it was still day [on Friday] established an eruv together, the bonds became undone on Shabbos, nullifying the eruv,10 and then [the ships] were tied together again. [In that instance,] the original license [to carry between the two ships] is restored, as explained in sec. 362[:8]. (Similarly, when [the residents of] two [adjoining] courtyards established an eruv for a year or more on the basis of an entrance between [the courtyards] and that entrance became closed during the week, but was reopened on Shabbos, the eruv automatically becomes valid again, as explained in sec. 374[:1].)

[The difference between these rulings can be explained as follows:] When [the passengers on] the ships established an eruv, it was not expected that [the bond between the ships] would be severed on Shabbos and the eruv would be nullified. (Similarly, when [the residents of] the courtyards established an eruv for a year or more, at that time, the entrance between [the courtyards] was not expected to be closed during that year or afterwards, [and cause] the eruv to be nullified.)11 By contrast, [in the instance described] here, [the fact that] the non-Jew came on Shabbos [indicates that] when the eruv was originally established it [was clear that the eruv] would not necessarily be viable for the entire Shabbos, since it could be nullified upon the arrival of the non-Jew. (Even if [the non-Jew] went on a journey to a distant place, he could leave [that] place during the week and arrive [home] on Shabbos.)

ב וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם רוֹצִים לִשְׂכּוֹר מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁבָּא בְּשַׁבָּת – אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל, אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁיְּבַטֵּל אֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ8 אַחַר שֶׁשָּׂכְרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ,7 יִהְיֶה חֲבֵרוֹ מֻתָּר.י אֲבָל הָעֵרוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר 9 כְּשֶׁשָּׂכְרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, הוֹאִיל וּכְבָר נִתְבַּטֵּל מִיָּד בְּבוֹאוֹ. וְאֵינוֹ דוֹמֶה לִסְפִינוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ קְשׁוּרוֹת זוֹ בְּזוֹ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם וְעֵרְבוּ יַחַד, וְנִפְסְקוּ בְּשַׁבָּת וְנִתְבַּטֵּל עֵרוּבָן10 וְחָזְרוּ וְנִקְשְׁרוּ, שֶׁחָזְרוּ לְהֶתֵּרָן הָרִאשׁוֹן, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שס"ביא (וְכֵן ב' חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁעֵרְבוּ פַּעַם אַחַת לְשָׁנָה אוֹ יוֹתֵר עַל יְדֵי פֶּתַח שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, וְנִסְתַּם הַפֶּתַח בְּחֹל וְנִפְתַּח בְּשַׁבָּת, שֶׁהָעֵרוּב חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר,יב,9 כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שע"דיג), לְפִי שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֵרְבוּ הַסְּפִינוֹת הַקְּשׁוּרוֹת, לֹא הָיוּ עוֹמְדוֹת לִפָּסֵק בְּשַׁבָּת וּלְהִתְבַּטֵּל עֵרוּבָןיד (וְכֵן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֵרְבוּ הַחֲצֵרוֹת לְשָׁנָה אוֹ יוֹתֵר, לֹא הָיָה הַפֶּתַח שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם עוֹמֵד אָז לִסְתּוֹם בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ אוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ וּלְהִתְבַּטֵּל עֵרוּבָןטו).11 מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כַּאן, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם כֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה הָעֵרוּב – לֹא הָיָה סוֹפוֹ לְהִתְקַיֵּם כָּל הַשַּׁבָּת, שֶׁכְּשֶׁיָּבֹא הַנָּכְרִי יִתְבַּטֵּל (וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הָלַךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ לְמֵרָחוֹק, יָכוֹל הוּא לֵילֵךְ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ בְּחֹל וְלָבֹא בְּשַׁבָּתטז):

3 If, however, the non-Jew was at home and [the Jews] rented his rights while it was still day [on Friday] and established an eruv among themselves, and [afterwards,] the non-Jew died on Shabbos, and on that day [the Jews] rented the rights from [the non-Jew’s] heir, the eruv automatically becomes valid again. [A lenient ruling is rendered] because [when the Jews] rented [the rights of the non-Jewish testator], he was not expected to die on Shabbos and cause [the Jews] to be forbidden [to carry]12 due to his heir’s [presence].

If, however, [the Jewish residents of the courtyard] established an eruv without renting [the non-Jew’s rights]13 and thus, they were forbidden [to carry within the courtyard], but afterwards, the non-Jew died on Shabbos, and his heir does not live [in that courtyard – in which instance,] his [ownership of the domain] does not cause [carrying] to be forbidden14 – nonetheless, the Jews remain forbidden to carry unless one of them nullifies [his rights] to the other. [In such an instance,] the person [in whose favor the rights were nullified] is permitted [to carry].15 The eruv, however, does not automatically become valid, since at the time [the Jewish residents of the courtyard established the eruv,]the non-Jew was not expected to die on Shabbos and additionally, they had as yet never [actually] acquired the eruv. (See sec. 374[:1].)16

This instance does not resemble one in which a Jew [who forgot to participate in an eruv] nullifies his rights to two other Jews who had established an eruv. In that instance, they are [both] permitted [to carry] because their eruv automatically became valid again. [The rationale for the leniency is that] when [the two Jews] established the eruv while it was still day [on Friday, the Jew who later nullified his rights] was fit to join their eruv as well. Therefore, his [presence] does not nullify their eruv when he forgot and did not join them. The non-Jew, by contrast, was not fit to join in an eruv with [the Jewish residents of the courtyard. Hence, the non-Jew’s] presence nullifies their eruv when he does not rent them his rights to the courtyard. Since [the eruv] was nullified while it was still day [on Friday], it does not automatically become valid again after nightfall, since an eruv cannot be established after nightfall.17

ג אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַנָּכְרִי בְּבֵיתוֹ, וְשָׂכְרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם וְעֵרְבוּ, וּמֵת הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת וְשָׂכְרוּ בּוֹ בַיּוֹם מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ – הֲרֵי הָעֵרוּב חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר9, הוֹאִיל וּבִשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּתוֹ לֹא הָיָה הַנָּכְרִי עוֹמֵד לָמוּת בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁיֶּאֱסֹר עֲלֵיהֶם12 יוֹרֵשׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׂכְרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ.יז

אֲבָל אִם עֵרְבוּ בְּלֹא שְׂכִירוּת,13 שֶׁהָיוּ אֲסוּרִים, וּמֵת הַנָּכְרִי בְּשַׁבָּת וְיוֹרְשׁוֹ אֵינוֹ דָר שָׁם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם14 – אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֲסוּרִים עַד שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל אֶחָד לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְיִהְיֶה חֲבֵרוֹ מֻתָּר.יח,15 אֲבָל הָעֵרוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר,9 הוֹאִיל וּבִשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּתוֹ לֹא הָיָה הַנָּכְרִי עוֹמֵד לָמוּת בְּשַׁבָּת, וְגַם לְפִי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא קָנוּ עֵרוּב מֵעוֹלָםיט (עַיֵּן סִמָּן שע"דכ,16).

וְאֵינוֹ דוֹמֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁעֵרְבוּ, שֶׁהֵם מֻתָּרִים, שֶׁעֵרוּבָם חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר,9 לְפִי שֶׁכְּשֶׁעֵרֵב מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם הָיָה גַם זֶה רָאוּי לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל עֵרוּבָם כְּשֶׁשָּׁכַח וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶם.כא מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן נָכְרִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם, הוּא מְבַטֵּל אֶת עֵרוּבָם כְּשֶׁלֹּא הִשְׂכִּיר לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר.כב וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּתְבַּטֵּל מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁכָה, שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִים מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ:כג,17