Why a Level 4 dedicated to the Alter Rebbe? The Shulchan Aruch HaRav is not a commentary on the Mechaber: it is a Shulchan Aruch in its own right, written by the Alter Rebbe, with its own division and numbering of the seifim. Here the Shulchan Aruch HaRav has one seif, and the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch has one seif too: the references on this page follow the Rav's numbering, except where the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch is named.
This page gathers, for Siman 367, the full text of the Rav with its translation, where his text differs from that of the Mechaber and the Rema, and the practical conduct that follows from it.
שלחן ערוך הרב — סימן שס״ז
The full text of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav of the Alter Rebbe
סימן שס״ז — דִּין אִם אִשָּׁה יְכוֹלָה לְעָרֵב — וּבוֹ סְעִיף אֶחָד
Source: Kehot edition, as reproduced on Sefaria. 1 seif (the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch also has 1, under its own numbering).
סעיף א דִּין אִם אִשָּׁה יְכוֹלָה לְעָרֵב וּבוֹ סְעִיף אֶחָד: אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעָרֶבֶת עָלָיו מִשֶּׁלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא…
דִּין אִם אִשָּׁה יְכוֹלָה לְעָרֵב וּבוֹ סְעִיף אֶחָד:
אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעָרֶבֶת עָלָיו מִשֶּׁלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ אִם מִחָה בָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְעָרֵב, וַאֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ רָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁאוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם הֶחָצֵר אִם לֹא יְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם, כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֵין בֵּיתוֹ פָּתוּחַ אֶלָּא לְחָצֵר זוֹ בִּלְבָד, וְאֵין לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת לָצֵאת מִבֵּיתוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ חָצֵר זוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הוּא פָּתוּחַ לִשְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת, בְּאַחַת הוּא רָגִיל לָצֵאת וְלָבֹא תָּדִיר, שֶׁאוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם, וּבְאַחַת אֵינוֹ רָגִיל לָצֵאת וְלָבֹא תָּדִיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם כְּלָל אֶלָּא שֶׁאָסוּר לְטַלְטֵל מִמֶּנָּה לְבֵיתוֹ — בְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁרָגִיל בָּהּ מְעָרֶבֶת עָלָיו אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ, וַאֲפִלּוּ אֵינֶנּוּ רָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם, אֲבָל בְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָגִיל בָּהּ אֵינָהּ מְעָרֶבֶת עָלָיו בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא עַצְמוֹ הָיָה רָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הֻרְגַּל עֲדַיִן לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם, אֵינָם יְכוֹלִים לִטּוֹל עֵרוּבוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מֵרְצוֹנוֹ בִּרְצוֹן אִשְׁתּוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם.
וְהוּא שֶׁגִּלָּה דַעְתּוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה. אֲבָל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר כֵּן בְּפֵרוּשׁ — יְכוֹלָה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִתֵּן לָהֶם עֵרוּבוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם וְאֵינוֹ רָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁמִּן הַסְּתָם נוֹחַ לוֹ בְּעֵרוּב אִשְׁתּוֹ.
אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְזַכּוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּידִיעָתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ לִבְנֵי חָצֵר שֶׁאוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם וְרָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם. אֲבָל יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְזַכּוֹת לָהֶם מִמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלָּהּ.
וְאִם אֵין הַבַּעַל וְהָאִשָּׁה בָּעִיר, יְכוֹלִים בְּנֵי הַבַּיִת לְעָרֵב מִשֶּׁלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּידִיעָתוֹ, שֶׁמִּן הַסְּתָם לֹא יַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶם. וְהוּא שֶׁאֵין הַבַּיִת פָּתוּחַ אֶלָּא לְחָצֵר אַחַת, שֶׁעֵרוּב זֶה בְּוַדַּאי זְכוּת הוּא לוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ בּוֹ צַד חוֹבָה, וְזָכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הוּא פָּתוּחַ לִשְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת — אֵין כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן יְכוֹלָה לְעָרֵב עָלָיו מִשֶּׁלּוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁנּוֹתְנִים לָהּ בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּידִיעָתוֹ, כִּי עֵרוּב זֶה אֵינֶנּוּ זְכוּת לוֹ וַדַּאי, כִּי שֶׁמָּא לֹא יַחְפּוֹץ לְעָרֵב עִם חָצֵר זוֹ אֶלָּא עִם זוֹ. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם הוּא רָגִיל לְעָרֵב בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְעָרֵב עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁנּוֹתְנִים בְּנֵי בֵיתוֹ, כִּי מִן הַסְּתָם חָפֵץ הוּא בְּעֵרוּבָהּ גַּם הַיּוֹם כְּמוֹ עַד עַתָּה.
אֲבָל מִי שֶׁעֵרֵב כְּבָר עִם בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר וְעֵרוּבוֹ קַיָּם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזַר בּוֹ מֵעֵרוּבוֹ — אֵין חֲזָרָתוֹ כְּלוּם, וְעֵרוּבוֹ עֵרוּב בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ אִם אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם אוֹ שֶׁרָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם. אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם וְאֵינוֹ רָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם, וְעֵרֵב עִמָּהֶם בְּאַקְרַאי וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזַר בּוֹ — הֲרֵי נִתְבַּטֵּל עֵרוּבוֹ, וְאִם רוֹצֶה לַחֲזוֹר וּלְעָרֵב, צָרִיךְ לַחֲזוֹר וְלִזְכּוֹת בְּעֵרוּבוֹ:
The law of whether a woman may make the eruv, and it contains one seif:
A man's wife makes the eruv on his behalf, from what is his, without his consent — even if he protested to her not to make the eruv, and even if he is not accustomed to make the eruv with them [the residents of the courtyard].
In what case is this said? When he forbids the courtyard to them (oser aleihem) if he does not make the eruv with them — for example, his house opens only onto this courtyard alone, and he has no other way to go out of his house to the public domain (reshus harabbim) except through this courtyard. But if it opens onto two courtyards — through one he is accustomed to go in and out constantly, so that he forbids [the courtyard] to them, and through the other he is not accustomed to go in and out constantly, so that he does not forbid them at all, except that it is forbidden to carry from it into his house — in the one he is accustomed to [use], his wife makes the eruv on his behalf against his will (be'al korcho), even if he is not accustomed to make the eruv with them; but in the one he is not accustomed to [use], she does not make the eruv on his behalf against his will, unless he himself used to make the eruv with them. But if he has not yet become accustomed to make the eruv with them, they [the residents of the courtyard] cannot take his eruv against his wish with his wife's consent, since he does not forbid [the courtyard] to them.
And this is when he expressly made known that he does not want it. But as long as he has not said so expressly, his wife may give them his eruv, even though he does not forbid [the courtyard] to them and is not accustomed to make the eruv with them, for presumably (min hasesam) his wife's eruv suits him.
But she cannot transfer (lezakos) to others what is his without his knowledge, even to the residents of a courtyard to whom he forbids [the courtyard] and with whom he is accustomed to make the eruv. But she can transfer to them from her food (mezonoseha), which is hers.
And if the husband and the wife are not in town, the members of the household may make the eruv from what is his without his knowledge, for presumably he will not mind. And this is when the house opens onto only one courtyard: this eruv is then certainly a benefit (zechus) for him with no aspect of detriment (tzad chovah), and one may confer [a benefit] on a person without his knowledge [the Rav uses here the same word as the “without his consent” at the start of the seif; it is rendered “without his knowledge” from the context of the household, for whom the Rav has just written “without his knowledge” (bidi'aso); the Beis Yosef reads this word the same way in the Tur, for the household]. But if it opens onto two courtyards, neither of them can make the eruv on his behalf from what is his, out of what the members of his household give it, without his knowledge: this eruv is not certainly a benefit for him, for perhaps he would not want to make the eruv with this courtyard but with the other. Nevertheless, if he is accustomed to make the eruv in one of them, that one may make the eruv on his behalf without his knowledge [same word, and same rendering, as above], out of what the members of his household give, for presumably he wants its eruv today too, as until now.
But one who has already made the eruv with the residents of the courtyard, and his eruv is still in existence, and afterwards retracted from his eruv — his retraction is nothing, and his eruv is an eruv against his will, if he forbids [the courtyard] to them or if he is accustomed to make the eruv with them. But if he does not forbid [the courtyard] to them and is not accustomed to make the eruv with them, and he made the eruv with them occasionally (b'akrai) and afterwards retracted — his eruv is annulled; and if he wishes to make the eruv again, he must again acquire (lizkos) [his share] in his eruv.
Source: Sefaria — Shulchan Arukh HaRav, Orach Chayim 367. Sefaria gives no Kuntres Acharon entry for this siman.
לשון הרב מול סעיף המחבר והרמ״א
Where the Rav's text differs from the Mechaber's seif and the Rema's
Two points, among others, where the Rav's text says what the text of the Mechaber and the Rema's gloss does not, as shown by comparing the two texts of Siman 367, quoted side by side. These points are not peculiar to the Rav for all that: on point א, the Magen Avraham (ס״ק א) already writes, as his own view, what the Rav says about the wife's food, and the Mishnah Berurah (ס״ק ו, ז) reads the Mechaber, on both elements of point א — the extension to the residents to whom he forbids the courtyard, and the wife's food —, in almost the same words as the Rav; on point ב, neither the Magen Avraham, nor the Taz, nor the Mishnah Berurah on this siman names, for the one who retracts from his eruv, the criterion of forbidding the courtyard, and we have not searched for it elsewhere: this does not mean that it is peculiar to the Rav. Conversely, the Rav's text does not reproduce the Mechaber's second opinion (וי״א): no passage of the Rav says what to conclude from this (see level 2, section 10).
נקודה א — לזכות ממזונותיה (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א)
Point א — transferring from her own food (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1)
What the wife cannot give, and what she can
What the Mechaber writes: « אבל אינה יכולה לזכות משלו לאחרים שלא בידיעתו » (שו״ע או״ח שס״ז:א), and he moves on to the case where the husband and the wife are not in town. Neither he nor the Rema's gloss says here what she can give from what is hers.
What the Rav writes: the same restriction, « אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְזַכּוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּידִיעָתוֹ » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א), which he extends expressly to the residents of a courtyard to whom the husband forbids the courtyard and with whom he is accustomed to make the eruv, « אֲפִלּוּ לִבְנֵי חָצֵר שֶׁאוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם וְרָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א); then he adds: « יְכוֹלָה הִיא לְזַכּוֹת לָהֶם מִמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלָּהּ » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א). The Magen Avraham had written this on that passage of the Mechaber, as his own opinion: « ונ״ל דממזונותיה רשאה לזכות » (מגן אברהם שס״ז ס״ק א). The Rav writes it in the body of the law. The Mishnah Berurah reads the Mechaber the same way on both of these elements: « היינו אפילו לבני חצר שאוסר עליהם ורגיל לערב עמהם » (משנה ברורה שס״ז ס״ק ו), and « וממזונותי׳ יכולה לזכות שהיא שלה » (משנה ברורה שס״ז ס״ק ז). The difference therefore lies in the text, not in the law as the Mishnah Berurah reads the Mechaber.
Practical consequence: the wife does not transfer to others what belongs to the husband without his knowledge; she may transfer to them from her food, which is hers (367:1).
נקודה ב — החוזר בו מעירובו (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א)
Point ב — one who retracts from his eruv (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1)
Forbidding the courtyard or being accustomed — not habit alone
What the Rema writes: « מי שאינו רגיל לערב ועירב עם בני חצר וחזר מעירובו צריך לחזור ולזכות » (רמ״א או״ח שס״ז:א), and « אבל אם רגיל לערב הוי עירוב בעל כרחו » (רמ״א או״ח שס״ז:א). His gloss frames the rule by the habit of making the eruv, without naming forbidding the courtyard.
What the Rav writes: for « מִי שֶׁעֵרֵב כְּבָר עִם בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר וְעֵרוּבוֹ קַיָּם » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א) and who afterwards retracted from his eruv, he writes: « אֵין חֲזָרָתוֹ כְּלוּם, וְעֵרוּבוֹ עֵרוּב בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ אִם אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם אוֹ שֶׁרָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א). The eruv is annulled only where he does not forbid the courtyard to them, is not accustomed to make the eruv with them, and made it with them only occasionally, « אִם אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם וְאֵינוֹ רָגִיל לְעָרֵב עִמָּהֶם » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א): « הֲרֵי נִתְבַּטֵּל עֵרוּבוֹ » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א).
The difference: the Rema's gloss names the habit of making the eruv; the Rav's text names in addition forbidding the courtyard to the other residents. The Rav also states explicitly that the case is one of an eruv still in existence, « וְעֵרוּבוֹ קַיָּם » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א); that point is not a difference: the Mishnah Berurah reads the Rema's gloss as dealing with the same case, « אף שעדיין הפת מונח במקומו » (משנה ברורה שס״ז ס״ק י״ט).
Practical consequence: according to the Rav's text, one who made the eruv with the residents of the courtyard and wishes to withdraw cannot do so if he forbids the courtyard to them or is accustomed to make the eruv with them; otherwise his eruv is annulled, and to make it again, « צָרִיךְ לַחֲזוֹר וְלִזְכּוֹת בְּעֵרוּבוֹ » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א). The rendering “acquire” follows the Kehot vocalization (lizkos); on the Rema's gloss, which has the same words, the Biur Halachah proposes to read that he need not transfer and give anew, but must say aloud that he joins them again and confers on all a share in his bread (see Level 2, section 9).
שיחות, מאמרים ואגרות הרבי
The words of the Rebbe on the themes of Siman 367
We attribute to the Rebbe only verifiable primary sources (a letter, sicha, or identifiable pesak, with a link). At this stage, no statement of the Rebbe directly tied to this siman could be confirmed against Sefaria or Chabad.org — we prefer to show nothing rather than an unsourced reference.
הלכה למעשה — מנהג חב״ד
The practical Chabad conduct
Points of halachic conduct that flow directly from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav Siman 367, in the Chabad sensibility. The siman has a single seif: each point refers to that seif, in the order of the text.
For the Chabad Chassid — Siman 367
- ① When the husband forbids the courtyard: for example, his house opens only onto this courtyard and he has no other way to the public domain; his wife makes the eruv on his behalf, from what is his, without his consent, even if he protested and even if he is not accustomed to make the eruv with them (367:1). Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1.
- ② A house opening onto two courtyards: in the courtyard he usually goes through, his wife makes the eruv on his behalf even against his will; in the other, not against his will, unless he used to make the eruv with its residents (367:1); and as long as he has not protested expressly, see ③. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1.
- ③ When he does not forbid the courtyard and is not accustomed: his eruv is not taken against his wish with his wife's consent, « וְהוּא שֶׁגִּלָּה דַעְתּוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א); as long as he has not said so expressly, his wife may give them his eruv, « לְפִי שֶׁמִּן הַסְּתָם נוֹחַ לוֹ בְּעֵרוּב אִשְׁתּוֹ » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א). Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1.
- ④ What the wife may give: not what is the husband's, to others, without his knowledge; but from her food, which is hers. See section 2. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1.
- ⑤ The husband and the wife away from town: the members of the household may make the eruv from what is his without his knowledge, if the house opens onto only one courtyard, since it is a benefit for him, « וְזָכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ » (שו״ע הרב שס״ז:א); if it opens onto two courtyards, only with the one in which he is accustomed to make the eruv (367:1). Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1.
- ⑥ Retracting from one's eruv: of no effect if he forbids the courtyard to them or is accustomed to make the eruv with them; otherwise the eruv is annulled, and to make it again he must again acquire [his share] in his eruv. See section 2. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 367:1.
⚠ This section presents the Chabad halachic conduct. For any concrete question: consult your Rav.