Daily Rambam · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2
Sugya Map
The sugya of Bitul Reshut (subordination or renunciation of domain) and Sechirat Reshut (leasing of domain) serves as the primary mechanism for resolving spatial conflicts in the laws of Eruvin. At its core, the Rabbinic prohibition of carrying in a shared courtyard (chatzer) is triggered by the co-existence of multiple, distinct private domains opening into a single shared space Mishnah Eruvin 6:1. When one or more residents fail to participate in the collective Eruvei Chatzerot before Shabbat, their un-integrated private domains "forbid" (oseir) the entire courtyard for carrying.
To resolve this post-facto deadlock on Shabbat itself, the Sages established two distinct legal bypasses:
- Bitul Reshut (Subordination of Domain): A unilateral, verbal renunciation of spatial rights by a Jewish non-participant, effectively transforming them into a "guest" (oreach) in the courtyard and removing their power to restrict carrying Mishnah Eruvin 6:3.
- Sechirat Reshut (Leasing of Domain): A formal lease executed with a non-Jewish resident (or a Jewish apostate) who is halachically ineligible to perform Bitul Reshut Talmud Eruvin 62a.
[Shared Courtyard (Chatzer) with Non-Participant]
|
+----------------------+----------------------+
| |
[Jewish Resident] [Non-Jewish Resident]
| |
[Bitul Reshut] [Sechirat Reshut]
(Verbal Renunciation) (Formalistic Lease)
| |
+----------+----------+ +---------+----------+
| | | |
[Sistalkut] [Kinyan] [Real Lease] [Mock Lease]
(Abdication of (Transfer of (Civil Property (Ritual Heker/
Authority) Rights) Transaction) Separation)
Primary Nafka Minot (Practical Ramifications)
- The Legal Mechanism of Bitul: Is Bitul characterized as Sistalkut (a pure, unilateral abdication of rights, akin to Hefker) or Kinyan (a bilateral transfer of usage rights)? If it is Sistalkut, it should require no specific recipient and can be executed freely on Shabbat. If it is Kinyan, it should require formal acquisition acts and specific recipients, and its execution on Shabbat should be rabbinically forbidden.
- The Status of Heretics and Shabbat Desecrators: Does a Jew who publicly desecrates Shabbat or denies the Oral Law retain the capacity to perform Bitul Reshut, or do they assume the status of a gentile, requiring the formalistic transaction of Sechirat Reshut?
- Sub-Perutah Transactions: Can Sechirat Reshut be executed for a nominal sum of less than a perutah? If it is a real-estate lease governed by civil law, a sub-perutah transaction is legally void. If it is a purely ritualistic designation, the nominal sum suffices.
Primary Sources
- Mishnaic Foundations: Mishnah Eruvin 6:1, Mishnah Eruvin 6:3, Mishnah Eruvin 6:4.
- Talmudic Discussions: Talmud Eruvin 62a (gentile leasing), Talmud Eruvin 69b (Sadducees and apostates), Talmud Eruvin 71a (Beit Shammai vs. Beit Hillel on Shabbat execution).
- Codification: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2.
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
The conceptual foundations of this chapter rest upon two critical passages in the Mishneh Torah:
Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:1
"כל הדיורין שבחצר... ביטל להן זה שלא עירב רשות חצרו בלבד... כשמבטל אדם רשותו צריך שיפרש לכל אחד ואחד מכל בני החצר ויאמר לו 'רשותי מבוטלת לך ולך ולך'."[^1]
“All the inhabitants of a courtyard... should this individual who did not participate in the eruv subordinate merely his share of the courtyard... When a person subordinates his domain, he must explicitly state this to each and every inhabitant of the courtyard, saying, 'My domain is subordinated to you, and to you, and to you.'”
Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:10
"או ביטלו הישראלים זה לזה ונעשו כיחיד עם הגוי לא הועילו כלום... שאין עירוב מועיל במקום גוי, ולא ביטול רשות מועיל במקום גוי. אלא הדרך היא שישכרו רשותו של גוי..."[^2]
“Or if the Jews subordinated [their domains] to one another, thereby becoming like a single individual living with a gentile, their deeds are of no consequence... For an eruv is not effective where a gentile is present, nor is the subordination of one's domain effective when a gentile is present. Rather, the only path is to rent the gentile’s domain...”
Grammatical and Lexical Nuances
- The Root ב.ט.ל. (B-T-L): The Rambam consistently uses the term Bitul (subordination/nullification) rather than Hafkash (expropriation) or Matanah (gift). This choice of terminology implies that the owner does not transfer physical ownership (guf ha-kar-ka), but rather nullifies their capacity to restrict others.
- The Repetitive Dative "לך ולך ולך" (Le-cha u-le-cha u-le-cha): The insistence on spelling out the dative pronoun for each individual neighbor demands analytical attention. If Bitul is a unilateral removal of ownership, why must it be directed to specific individuals? The repetition of "to you, and to you" suggests that Bitul is not an objective abandonment of property into the ether, but an interpersonal transfer of usage rights.
- "לא הועילו כלום" (Lo ho'ilu klum): In Halacha 10, the Rambam rules that trying to perform Bitul among Jews to reduce their legal status to a "single individual" in the presence of a gentile is completely ineffective. The phrase lo ho'ilu klum underscores that the presence of a gentile introduces a structural deficit in the courtyard's halachic status that cannot be resolved through internal Jewish property adjustments.
Readings
The mechanics of Bitul Reshut and Sechirat Reshut provoke a rich array of conceptual models among the Rishonim and Acharonim. These interpretations clarify whether these mechanisms operate under civil property law (Choshen Mishpat) or purely ritualistic domain definitions (Orach Chayim).
1. Rashi vs. Rambam on the Verbal Formula "Le-cha U-le-cha"
The core debate surrounding the verbal execution of Bitul Reshut centers on the level of specificity required.
[Verbal Formula of Bitul Reshut]
|
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| |
[Rambam's View] [Rashi's View]
"Le-cha u-le-cha" "To all of you"
| |
[Conceptual] [Conceptual]
Targeted, bilateral Unilateral, general
relinquishment to each abandonment of rights
neighbor individually (Hefker-like model)
The Rambam rules that the subordinator must explicitly address every single resident of the courtyard: "My domain is subordinated to you, and to you, and to you."[^3]
Rashi, however, disagrees, maintaining that a general declaration of "I subordinate my domain to all of you" is entirely sufficient.[^4]
The Turei Zahav (Taz) attempts to resolve the Rambam's stringency on pragmatic linguistic grounds: if the subordinator merely says "to all of you," we fear his subjective intent was "to most of you" (excluding his enemies), which would leave the Eruv invalid.[^5]
However, the Kehillot Yaakov uncovers a deeper, lomdishe split.[^6] The debate hinges on whether Bitul is modeled after Matanah (a gift/transfer of rights) or Sistalkut (unilateral abdication).
If Bitul is a form of Matanah, it cannot exist in a vacuum; it requires a defined recipient (Koneh). Thus, the subordinator must execute a series of distinct transfers to each neighbor, requiring the formula "to you, and to you."
If Bitul is Sistalkut—a unilateral removal of the owner's legal presence from the courtyard, akin to Hefker—then once the owner abandons their rights, those rights are gone. No specific recipient is required, and Rashi's general declaration "to all of you" is sufficient.
This raises a classic difficulty: in Halacha 2, the Rambam rules like Beit Hillel that Bitul Reshut may be performed on Shabbat itself.[^7] The Gemara explains that this is permitted because Bitul is merely the "removal of authority" (סתלקות) and not a "transfer of property" (קנין), which would violate the rabbinic prohibition of conducting business on Shabbat (mikkach u-mimkar).[^8]
If the Rambam holds that Bitul is Sistalkut (explaining why it is permitted on Shabbat), why does he require the highly specific, transaction-like formula of "to you, and to you" in Halacha 1?
The Rogotchover Gaon (Tzafnat Pa'neach) resolves this by introducing a hybrid category: Sistalkut L'gabei Ploni (targeted abdication).[^9]
Even if Bitul is not a positive transfer of property (Kinyan), it is not a complete abandonment of ownership into absolute ownerlessness (Hefker). Rather, it is a selective withdrawal of the owner's right to restrict carrying, executed specifically in favor of their neighbors. Because this withdrawal is directed toward the other residents, the verbal formula must explicitly identify them, even though no formal acquisition (Kinyan Guf) occurs.
2. The Rogotchover on the Nature of Sechirat Reshut
In Halacha 11, the Rambam writes:
"מפני ששכירות זו כביטול רשות היא... ולפיכך שוכרין מן העכו"ם בפחות משוה פרוטה."[^10]
“Because this rental is like the subordination of a domain... therefore we rent from a gentile for less than the value of a perutah.”
The Rogotchover Gaon analyzes this passage to determine whether Sechirat Reshut is a valid civil lease or a purely ritualistic act.[^11]
He points to the debate in the Talmud Yerushalmi between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan regarding whether a gentile's courtyard has any halachic standing (יש תורת חצר לעכו"ם).[^12] If a gentile's courtyard has no halachic standing, then the gentile's presence does not forbid carrying based on property law. Rather, the restriction is a purely rabbinic decree (gzeirah) designed to discourage Jews from living in close proximity to gentiles, lest they learn from their deeds.[^13]
[Halachic Status of Gentile Courtyard]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[Rav's Position] [R. Yochanan's Position]
Has halachic standing No halachic standing;
as a standard domain purely rabbinic decree
| |
[Sechirat Reshut] [Sechirat Reshut]
Must be a valid civil A purely ritualistic
lease (Choshen Mishpat) heker (Orach Chayim)
Based on this, the Rogotchover argues that Sechirat Reshut is not designed to acquire the gentile's property rights under civil law (Choshen Mishpat). Instead, it is a ritualistic act (heker) that satisfies the Rabbinic decree.
Because the lease is not a standard civil transaction, it does not require a perutah (the minimum value for civil transactions), and it may be performed on Shabbat itself without violating the prohibition of business dealings. It is merely a formalistic trigger that suspends the Rabbinic restriction.
3. Rashba vs. Rambam on the Sadducee and the Public Shabbat Desecrator
In Halacha 13, the Rambam draws a sharp distinction between two types of non-conforming Jews:
- The Public Shabbat Desecrator (or Idolator): Treated entirely as a gentile. Their Bitul Reshut is invalid, and we must rent their domain (Sechirat Reshut) as we would from a gentile.[^14]
- The Sadducee (who denies the Oral Law but does not publicly desecrate Shabbat): Cannot rent out their domain (since they are legally Jewish), but must perform Bitul Reshut to permit carrying.[^15]
The Rashba questions this asymmetry.[^16] If a public Shabbat desecrator has the halachic status of a gentile, why can we rent from them? Conversely, if a Sadducee is Jewish, why can't they join the Eruv directly?
[Halachic Status of Non-Conforming Jews]
|
+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| |
[Public Shabbat Desecrator] [Sadducee]
| |
[Halachic Status] [Halachic Status]
Treated as a gentile Treated as a Jew
| |
[Permitted Action] [Permitted Action]
Sechirat Reshut (Lease) Bitul Reshut (Subordination)
The Rashba explains that the mechanisms of Eruv and Bitul operate on different halachic tracks:
- Eruv requires Shituf (Partnership): A partnership requires a shared halachic consciousness and mutual belief in the mitzvah. Because a Sadducee denies the Oral Law, they cannot form a partnership based on a Rabbinic institution they reject.
- Bitul is Sistalkut (Unilateral Abdication): Bitul does not require a partnership or mutual agreement; it is a unilateral relinquishment of rights. Since the Sadducee is genealogically Jewish, they retain the power to abdicate their property rights.
- The Public Shabbat Desecrator: Because they publicly violate Shabbat, the Sages stripped them of their legal Jewish status regarding Shabbat laws. Consequently, they cannot perform Bitul (which is reserved for Jews), but they can lease their domain (Sechirat Reshut), as their legal status is equated with that of a gentile.
The Chidushei Maran Riz Halevi (Soloveitchik) refines this distinction.[^17] He explains that Eruv is a positive mechanism that unifies domains (Kinyan L'Chaber), requiring active halachic capacity.
Bitul, by contrast, is a negative mechanism that removes a barrier (Hafakaat M'niyah). The Sadducee, possessing Jewish identity but lacking belief, cannot participate in the positive unification of Eruv, but can perform the negative abdication of Bitul.
The public Shabbat desecrator, having completely severed their connection to the Shabbat community, is legally cast out of the domain system of the courtyard, requiring the external mechanism of Sechirat Reshut.
4. Ohr Sameach on Ten Gentiles in One House
In Halacha 10, the Rambam rules:
"אם היו עכו"ם רבים... צריכים שישכרו הישראלים מהן ואחר כך יערבו..."[^18]
“If there are many gentiles... the Jews must rent from them, and only afterwards establish an eruv...”
The Ohr Sameach cites a passage from the Talmud Yerushalmi: "Ten gentiles living in one house, one must rent from all of them."[^19] He contrasts this with the Rambam’s ruling that if a gentile has many workers, servants, or wives, renting from any one of them is sufficient.[^20]
[Leasing from Multiple Residents]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[Independent Partners] [Subordinate Residents]
(Ten gentiles in one house) (Wives, servants, workers)
| |
[Halachic Rule] [Halachic Rule]
Must rent from each individual Rent from any single individual
| |
[Legal Reason] [Legal Reason]
Each holds independent veto Occupancy is legally subsumed
power (Akuv) over domain under the householder
The Ohr Sameach resolves this by distinguishing between independent partners (Shutfin) and subordinates.
When ten gentiles occupy a house as equal partners, each possesses an independent right to restrict carrying in the courtyard (akuv). Because no single partner has the authority to waive the rights of the others, the Jew must rent from each of them individually to clear the restriction.
In contrast, the occupancy of wives, servants, or workers is legally subsumed under the authority of the primary householder. Because their rights are derivative, renting from any one of them is sufficient to lease the entire domain.
Friction
The laws of Sechirat Reshut present a significant conceptual tension between civil law (Choshen Mishpat) and ritual Shabbat law (Orach Chayim).
The Kushya: The Sub-Perutah Lease on Shabbat
In Halacha 11, the Rambam rules that Sechirat Reshut may be executed on Shabbat itself, and that it remains valid even if performed for less than a perutah.[^21]
This ruling faces a major challenge from two core rulings of the Rambam elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah:
- The Validity of Sub-Perutah Transactions: In Hilchot Mechirah, the Rambam rules that a transaction involving less than a perutah is completely null and void under Jewish law (ein lo shem kinyan).[^22] If a sub-perutah lease has no legal validity, how can it transfer the gentile's domain to the Jew?
- Business on Shabbat: In Hilchot Shabbat, the Rambam rules that executing a rental agreement (sechirut) on Shabbat is a Rabbinic violation of business transactions (mikkach u-mimkar).[^23] While the Rambam permits Bitul Reshut on Shabbat because it is a verbal abdication (Sistalkut), a lease (Sechirut) is a formal civil contract. How can the Sages permit a formal business transaction on Shabbat?
Furthermore, if this lease is a legal fiction permitted solely to bypass a Rabbinic restriction, why does the Rambam rule in Halacha 10 that if two Jews perform Bitul to one another in the presence of a gentile, "their deeds are of no consequence"?[^24]
If the gentile's presence can be bypassed with a nominal, sub-perutah lease on Shabbat, why can't the Jews simply use Bitul to bypass the restriction? Why is the gentile's presence a firm barrier that invalidates Bitul, yet easily resolved by a sub-perutah lease?
Terutz A: The Or Sameach's Noahide Civil Law Model
The Or Sameach resolves this difficulty by analyzing the civil status of gentiles under Noahide law.[^25]
Under Jewish law (Choshen Mishpat), a transaction of less than a perutah is legally invalid. However, the Talmud states that under Noahide law, property transactions are binding for values of less than a perutah (בן נח נקנה בפחות משוה פרוטה).[^26]
[Validity of Sub-Perutah Lease]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[Jewish Civil Law] [Noahide Civil Law]
Requires minimum of perutah Valid for less than a perutah
| |
+------------------------+------------------------+
|
[Halachic Synthesis]
Lease is legally binding to gentile;
Sages permitted Shabbat business transaction
as a ritual exemption (Shvut b'makom Mitzvah)
Therefore, when a Jew leases a domain from a gentile for less than a perutah, the transaction is legally binding in the eyes of the gentile. Because the gentile considers themselves bound by the agreement, they have legally relinquished their right to restrict carrying in the courtyard.
The requirement of a perutah is a specific rule of Jewish civil law; it does not invalidate a transaction that is legally binding under the laws governing the non-Jewish party.
To address the prohibition of business transactions on Shabbat, the Or Sameach explains that the Sages permitted this specific lease as a ritual exemption (Shvut d'shari b'makom mitzvah). Because the lease is required to permit carrying on Shabbat, the Sages relaxed the Rabbinic prohibition of business transactions, treating the lease as conceptually similar to Bitul Reshut.
Terutz B: The Rogotchover's Metaphysical "Status Redefinition" Model
The Rogotchover Gaon offers an alternative solution, arguing that Sechirat Reshut does not operate as a standard civil lease at all.[^27]
In a standard lease, the tenant acquires the right to use the property (Kinyan Peirot). In Sechirat Reshut, however, the Jew has no interest in using the gentile's home. The sole purpose of the lease is to remove the gentile's restrictive presence from the shared courtyard.
Therefore, Sechirat Reshut is not a property transaction; it is a redefinition of halachic status.
The gentile's power to restrict carrying stems from their status as an active resident (dirat keva). When the Jew "rents" the domain, they are not buying property rights; they are purchasing the gentile's agreement to be treated as a "guest" (oreach) rather than an active resident.
Because this transaction does not transfer property rights, the standard rules of civil transactions—such as the perutah minimum—do not apply. Any token of exchange that the gentile accepts as a gesture of agreement is sufficient to redefine their status.
Similarly, because this status redefinition is not a true business transaction, it does not violate the Shabbat prohibition of business dealings.
This explains why Bitul Reshut is ineffective in the presence of a gentile. Bitul is an internal Jewish mechanism of abdication. A gentile, who does not recognize the laws of Shabbat or Eruvin, cannot have their status altered by a Jewish verbal abdication.
To change the gentile's status, the Jew must use a transactional mechanism that the gentile recognizes—a lease. Thus, Sechirat Reshut is required, but its requirements are relaxed because its function is purely ritualistic.
Intertext
The mechanics of Sechirat Reshut and Bitul Reshut share significant conceptual parallels with other areas of Halacha, particularly the laws of Passover and modern applications of Shabbat laws.
1. Sechirat Reshut in Eruvin vs. Mechirat Chametz on Passover
The use of a formalistic transaction to alter the religious status of a domain or object appears in both the leasing of a gentile's domain for Eruvin and the sale of Chametz (Mechirat Chametz) before Passover.
[Comparison of Formalistic Transactions]
|
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| |
[Sechirat Reshut (Eruvin)] [Mechirat Chametz]
| |
[Halachic Level] [Halachic Level]
Purely Rabbinic restriction Torah-level prohibition
| |
[Transaction Rigor] [Transaction Rigor]
Relaxed: sub-perutah, Strict: absolute sale,
permitted on Shabbat valid civil kinyanim
| |
[Conceptual Goal] [Conceptual Goal]
Status redefinition (heker) Complete transfer of ownership
Despite their structural similarities, these two transactions operate under different levels of halachic rigor:
- The Prohibition Level: The restriction on carrying in an un-eruv-ed courtyard is entirely Rabbinic (Derabanan). In contrast, the prohibition against owning Chametz on Passover is a Torah-level law (De'oraita), carrying the penalty of spiritual excision (Karet) Exodus 12:19.
- Transaction Rigor: Because Eruvin is a Rabbinic institution, the Sages were lenient, permitting Sechirat Reshut to be performed on Shabbat itself and for less than a perutah Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:11. For Mechirat Chametz, however, because it concerns a Torah-level prohibition, the sale must be an absolute transaction (mechirah gemura) that complies fully with both Jewish civil law and local secular law, utilizing valid acts of acquisition (kinyanim). A sub-perutah sale or a transaction lacking civil validity would leave the Jew in violation of the Torah prohibition.
2. The Halachic Status of Non-Observant Jews in Modern Times
In Halacha 13, the Rambam rules that a public Shabbat desecrator is treated as a gentile for the laws of Eruvin, meaning they cannot perform Bitul Reshut and their domain must be rented.[^28] This ruling presents a significant challenge for modern communal Eruvin, which encompass many Jewish residents who do not fully observe Shabbat.
To address this challenge, modern halachic authorities have reassessed the status of non-observant Jews:
- The Binyan Tzion's Innovation: Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger argues that a public Shabbat desecrator is only equated with a gentile when their violation represents a willful rebellion against God and the Jewish community.[^29]
- The Tinok She-Nishba Model: In modern times, most non-observant Jews are raised without a traditional Jewish education and are largely unaware of the severity of Shabbat laws. Consequently, halachic authorities like Rabbi Moshe Feinstein classify them as tinok she-nishba (a child captured by non-Jews).[^30]
Because their non-observance does not stem from willful rebellion, they do not assume the status of a gentile for Eruvin. Consequently, they do not prevent the establishment of a communal Eruv, and their domains do not require formal leasing.
Psak/Practice
The theoretical principles of Sechirat Reshut and Bitul Reshut shape the design and maintenance of modern communal Eruvin.
[Modern Municipal Eruv Construction]
|
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| |
[Individual-Level Leasing] [Municipal-Level Leasing]
Rent from each non-Jewish Lease rights from municipal
resident door-to-door authorities (Mayor/Police)
| |
[Feasibility] [Feasibility]
Virtually impossible Highly practical
| |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+
|
[Legal Mechanism]
Municipal eminent domain and right
of emergency entry (Yad Ha-Sar)
constitutes halachic partnership
The Modern Municipal Lease
In a modern city, it is practically impossible to go door-to-door to secure lease agreements from every non-Jewish or non-observant resident. To resolve this, modern halachic practice relies on a municipal lease.
The organizers of the Eruv execute a Sechirat Reshut agreement with a high-ranking municipal official, such as the Mayor, Chief of Police, or City Commissioner. The lease is typically signed for a nominal fee (such as $1.00) for a long term (such as 99 years).
Why the Municipal Lease is Halachically Effective
This practice relies on the municipal government's legal rights over private property, such as eminent domain, zoning laws, and emergency access rights (Yad Ha-Sar or T'fizat Yad).
Because government authorities retain the legal right to enter private properties for public safety, utilities, or emergency services, they are halachically considered "partners" with a right of entry in every domain within their jurisdiction Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 382:18.
By renting these rights of entry from the municipality, the Jewish community effectively leases the necessary spatial rights for the entire city, permitting carrying within the boundaries of the Eruv Mishnah Berurah 382:62.
Takeaway
The laws of Eruvin demonstrate that Shabbat domains are not merely physical spaces, but social and legal constructs. Through the mechanisms of Bitul and Sechira, the Sages showed that physical boundaries can be reshaped by legal definitions, transforming a fragmented public space into a unified, peaceful home.
[^1]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:1. [^2]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:10. [^3]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:1. [^4]: Rashi, Talmud Eruvin 26b s.v. "דביטל". [^5]: Taz, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 380:1. [^6]: Kehillot Yaakov, Eruvin, Siman 24. [^7]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:2. [^8]: Talmud Eruvin 71a. [^9]: Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:1. [^10]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:11. [^11]: Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:11. [^12]: Yerushalmi Eruvin 6:1. [^13]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:10. [^14]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:13. [^15]: Ibid. [^16]: Rashba, Talmud Eruvin 68b s.v. "הא דאמרינן". [^17]: Chidushei Maran Riz Halevi, Hilchot Eruvin. [^18]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:10. [^19]: Yerushalmi Eruvin 6:1, cited in Ohr Sameach on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:10. [^20]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:10. [^21]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:11. [^22]: Mishneh Torah, Mechirah 29:1. [^23]: Mishneh Torah, Shabbat 23:12. [^24]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:10. [^25]: Ohr Sameach on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:11. [^26]: Talmud Sanhedrin 57a. [^27]: Tzafnat Pa'neach on Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:11. [^28]: Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 2:13. [^29]: Binyan Tzion, Sh'eilot U'teshuvot, Siman 23. [^30]: Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chayim, 1:139.
derekhlearning.com