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 its own numbering of the seifim. Here the Shulchan Aruch HaRav has 7 seifim, where the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch has 4; the references on this page follow the Rav's numbering, except where the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch is named.
This page gathers, for Siman 380, the full text of the Rav with its translation, where his text differs from the Mechaber's, and the practical conduct that follows from it. Here “annulment” (“annulling one's domain”) renders the Rav's ביטול רשות: it is the same notion that levels 1 to 3 call “renunciation of domain”.
שלחן ערוך הרב — סימן ש״פ · 380
The full text of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav of the Alter Rebbe
סימן ש״פ · 380 — דִּינֵי בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת — וּבוֹ ז׳ סְעִיפִים
Source: Kehot edition, as reproduced on Sefaria. 7 seifim (the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch has 4, under its own numbering).
סעיף א דִּינֵי בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת וּבוֹ ז' סְעִיפִים: אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶם…
דִּינֵי בִּטּוּל רְשׁוּת וּבוֹ ז' סְעִיפִים:
אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶם — אוֹסֵר עֲלֵיהֶם. מַה תַּקָּנָתָם? יְבַטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֶּחָצֵר, שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לָכֶם" אוֹ "רְשׁוּתִי קְנוּיָה לָכֶם". וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִקְנוֹת בְּקִנְיַן סוּדָר. וְיָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קוֹנִין קִנְיָן בְּשַׁבָּת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כַּאן אֵין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּקְנוּ הֵם רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא יְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ, וּמִמֵּילָא אֵין מִי שֶׁיֶּאֱסֹר עֲלֵיהֶם; וּלְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ מֻתָּר אַף בְּשַׁבָּת.
וְאִם דָּר עִם ד' אוֹ ה' — צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְכֻלְּכֶם", וְלֹא דַי שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁמְּבַטֵּל לוֹ כְּבָר עֵרֵב עִם הַשְּׁאָר. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵּן, אַף לְמִי שֶׁבִּטֵּל לוֹ אָסוּר. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁלֹּא דַי שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְכֻלְּכֶם", אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ וְיֹאמַר "מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְךָ וּלְךָ". וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַלֵךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל:
Laws of the annulment of domain (bittul reshus); it contains 7 seifim:
One of the residents of the courtyard who forgot and did not make an eruv with them forbids them [to carry]. What is their remedy? He annuls to them the domain he has in the courtyard, by saying “my domain is annulled to you” or “my domain is acquired by you”. And there is no need to acquire by a kinyan sudar. And he may annul after nightfall. And although one does not perform an act of acquisition (kinyan) on Shabbos, nevertheless here it is not necessary that they acquire his domain; rather, he removes himself from his domain, and as a result there is no one who forbids them; and removing oneself from one's domain is permitted even on Shabbos.
And if he lives with four or five, he must annul to each and every one, by saying “my domain is annulled to all of you”, and it is not enough that he annul to one of them, even though the one to whom he annuls has already made an eruv with the others. And if he did not do so, it is forbidden even for the one to whom he annulled. And some say that it is not enough to say “my domain is annulled to all of you”, but he must specify and say “annulled to you and to you”. And as for the halachah, in rabbinic matters (divrei soferim) follow the lenient view.
סעיף ב אִם בִּטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ סְתָם — לֹא בִטֵּל אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת…
אִם בִּטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ סְתָם — לֹא בִטֵּל אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֶּחָצֵר. לְפִיכָךְ הֵם מֻתָּרִים לְהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר וְגַם הוּא, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה אֶצְלָם כְּאוֹרֵחַ בְּעָלְמָא. אֲבָל אֲסוּרִים לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר וְכֵן לְהַכְנִיס, שֶׁהֲרֵי בֵּיתוֹ הוּא מְיֻחָד לוֹ וְהֶחָצֵר לָהֶם, וַהֲרֵי זֶה מוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא, שֶׁבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ וְגַם בֶּחָצֵר הוּא כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָסוּר לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר (וְכֵן לְהַכְנִיס), לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁהוּא כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר, אֲבָל תַּשְׁמִישׁ שֶׁמִּבֵּיתוֹ אוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ — אֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא אוֹרֵחַ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִנְעוֹל בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לְהוֹצִיא בְּאִסּוּר, וְלֹא יִפְתָּחֶנּוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁרוֹצֶה לָצֵאת וְלָבֹא, וְיִנְעָלֶנּוּ מִיָּד אַחַר צֵאתוֹ וּבוֹאוֹ.ֹ וְהַמֵּקֵל לֹא הִפְסִיד, כִּי יֵשׁ לוֹ עַל מִי לִסְמוֹךְ:
If he annulled his domain to them without specifying, he annulled only the domain he has in the courtyard. Therefore they may carry from their houses to the courtyard, and so may he, because he becomes with them like a mere guest (oreach). But they may not carry from his house to the courtyard, nor likewise bring in [from the courtyard], for his house is his own and the courtyard is theirs, and this is carrying from one domain to another. And even he, whose house is his and who is like a guest with them in the courtyard too, may nevertheless not carry from his house to the courtyard (nor likewise bring in), because one says that he is like a guest with them only regarding use from their houses to the courtyard; but for use out of his house or into his house, one cannot say that he is a guest. And some say that he must lock his house, so that he does not come to carry in a forbidden way, and open it only when he wants to go out or come in, and lock it immediately after he has gone out or come in. And one who is lenient has not lost, for he has someone to rely on.
סעיף ג אִם בִּטֵּל לָהֶם גַּם רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ — מֻתָּרִים גַּם בְּבֵיתוֹ…
אִם בִּטֵּל לָהֶם גַּם רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ — מֻתָּרִים גַּם בְּבֵיתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לֶחָצֵר וְכֵן לְהַכְנִיס כְּמוֹ בְּבָתֵּיהֶם, וְגַם הוּא מֻתָּר בְּבֵיתוֹ כְּמוֹ בְּבָתֵּיהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹרֵחַ גָּמוּר אֶצְלָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ שׁוּם רְשׁוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִטְּלָה לָהֶם. רַק שֶׁיִּזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר קֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ [הֵ]ם מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחֲזִיקוּ הֵם בֶּחָצֵר תְּחִלָּה, וְלֹא יַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּכְנִיסוּ הֵם מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שפ״א:
If he annulled to them the domain of his house as well, they may, in his house too, carry out of it to the courtyard and likewise bring in [from the courtyard], as in their own houses; and he too is permitted in his house as in their houses, because he becomes a complete guest with them, since no domain at all remains to him that he has not annulled to them. Only, he should take care not to carry from his house to the courtyard before they have carried from their houses to the courtyard, so that they take possession of the courtyard first, and not to bring in from the courtyard into his house before they have brought in from the courtyard into his house [his own; see 381:1], as will be explained in Siman 381.
סעיף ד אִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְבַטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ…
אִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְבַטֵּל לָהֶם רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא לְהַשְׂכִּירוֹ — יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁשְּׂכִירוּת מוֹעֶלֶת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוֹעֶלֶת בְּנָכְרִי, לְפִי שֶׁהַשְּׂכִירוּת אֵינָהּ גָּרוּעַ מֵהַבִּטּוּל שֶׁהִיא מַתָּנָה בְּחִנָּם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁלֹּא תִקְּנוּ שְׂכִירוּת אֶלָּא בְּנָכְרִי שֶׁאֵין בִּטּוּלוֹ מוֹעִיל, אֲבָל לֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל:
If he does not want to annul his domain to them, but to rent it to them: some say that renting (sechirus) is effective for a Jew just as it is effective for a non-Jew, because renting is no weaker than annulment, which is a free gift. And some say that renting was instituted only for a non-Jew, whose annulment is not effective, but not for a Jew. And as for the halachah, in rabbinic matters follow the lenient view.
סעיף ה אִם בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁעֵרְבוּ מְבַטְּלִין רְשׁוּתָם לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶם…
אִם בְּנֵי הֶחָצֵר שֶׁעֵרְבוּ מְבַטְּלִין רְשׁוּתָם לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב עִמָּהֶם — הוּא מֻתָּר לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר, וְלֹא מִבָּתֵּיהֶם, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בִּטְּלוּ לוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ גַּם רְשׁוּת בָּתֵּיהֶם.
וְהֵם אֲסוּרִים אֲפִלּוּ מִבֵּיתוֹ לֶחָצֵר. 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, שֶׁאֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁהֵם מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁים בָּהּ כְּאוֹרְחִים בְּעָלְמָא, לְפִי שֶׁהָרַבִּים לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד אֵינָן דּוֹמִין כְּאוֹרְחִים אֶצְלוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם כְּבָר הֶחֱזִיק הוּא בֶּחָצֵר — אֵין זֶה מוֹעִיל שֶׁלֹּא יוּכְלוּ הָרַבִּים לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֶם.
אֲבָל מֻתָּרִים לְהַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ, 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, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֲסוּרִים לְהוֹצִיא אֲפִלּוּ מִבֵּיתוֹ מַמָּשׁ לֶחָצֵר:
If the residents of the courtyard who made an eruv annul their domain to one who did not make an eruv with them, he may carry from his house to the courtyard, but not from their houses, unless they explicitly annulled to him the domain of their houses as well.
And they are forbidden even from his house to the courtyard. And although [the courtyard and his house] are one domain after they annulled it to him, nevertheless, since this courtyard was theirs, when they again carry into it, it is as though they were retracting and wanting to acquire it; for one cannot say that they use it as mere guests, because the many, with respect to an individual, are not like guests with him. And even if he has already taken possession (hechezik) of the courtyard, this does not prevent the many from being able to retract.
But they may bring in from the courtyard into his house, because a retraction is seen only when they bring into their own domain that they annulled, that is, into the courtyard; but when they take out of this domain and bring into another domain, this is not seen as a retraction.
But they may not bring in from the courtyard into their houses, even if they annulled to him the domain of their houses as well, so that everything became one domain, his: nevertheless, since they are not like guests with respect to the individual, when they bring into their houses it is as though they were retracting and acquiring their houses. And it goes without saying that they may not carry from their houses to the courtyard, even if they annulled to him the domain of their houses as well, just as they may not carry even from his own house to the courtyard.
סעיף ו וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם לְבָד דָּרִים בֶּחָצֵר וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ…
וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם לְבָד דָּרִים בֶּחָצֵר וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ, וּבִטֵּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם לַחֲבֵרוֹ — דִּינוֹ כְּרַבִּים לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד, שֶׁאַף הַיָּחִיד אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹרֵחַ לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד אֶלָּא לְגַבֵּי רַבִּים, וְאֵין רַבִּים פְּחוּתִים מִשְּׁנַיִם. וְכֵן רַבִּים שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ רְשׁוּתָם לְרַבִּים שֶׁעֵרְבוּ, אֵינָם נַעֲשִׂים אוֹרְחִים אֶצְלָם, וְדִינָם כְּרַבִּים לְגַבֵּי יָחִיד:
Likewise, if only two lived in the courtyard and did not make an eruv, and one of them annulled [his domain] to the other, his law is that of the many with respect to an individual: for even an individual does not become a guest with respect to an individual, only with respect to many, and “many” is no fewer than two. And likewise, many who did not make an eruv who annulled their domain to many who did make an eruv do not become guests with them, and their law is that of the many with respect to an individual.
סעיף ז רַבִּים שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ יְכוֹלִים לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתָם בֵּין…
רַבִּים שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ יְכוֹלִים לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתָם בֵּין לְיָחִיד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב בֵּין לְרַבִּים שֶׁעֵרְבוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם, וּבִלְבָד שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהַמְבַטְּלִים יְבַטֵּל לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְמַעְלָה בְּיָחִיד הַמְבַטֵּל. אֲבָל לְרַבִּים שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ, אֲפִלּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא עֵרְבוּ — אֵין מְבַטְּלִין לָהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁהַמְבַטְּלִים הֵם רַבִּים שֶׁעֵרְבוּ בֵּין שֶׁהוּא יָחִיד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב, שֶׁהֲרֵי אַף לְאַחַר שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ לָהֶם הֵם שְׁנַיִם, וְאֶחָד אוֹסֵר עַל חֲבֵרוֹ.
וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם חָזַר הָאֶחָד וּבִטֵּל לַחֲבֵרוֹ — אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם, 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. וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּשֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ לוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אָמְרוּ לוֹ "אָנוּ מְבַטְּלִים לְךָ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתַּחֲזוֹר וּתְבַטֵּל לַחֲבֵרְךָ", שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהֶם רְשׁוּת לְבַטֵּל לוֹ — אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בְּחֵלֶק שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ לוֹ בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיּוּכַל לְטַלְטֵל בֶּחָצֵר, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַקְנוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ:
Many who did not make an eruv may annul their domain either to an individual who did not make an eruv, or to many who made an eruv among themselves, provided that each of those annulling annuls to each one of them, as was explained above regarding an individual who annuls. But to many who did not make an eruv, even to two who did not make an eruv, one does not annul, whether those annulling are many who made an eruv or an individual who did not make an eruv, for even after they annul to them, they are two, and one forbids the other.
And even if one of them then annulled to his fellow, it does not help at all: since, at the time the first ones annulled the courtyard to this one who then annuls, he did not then have in it any right to permitted carrying, because they forbid each other, this annulment did not help at all; and when he then annuls to the other, he cannot annul a domain that is theirs, since they did not acquire [a right] in it [the courtyard; the text has the plural, זָכוּ]. And even if, when the first ones annulled to him, they told him “we annul to you on condition that you then annul to your fellow”, so that they gave them permission to annul to him [the text has לָהֶם … לוֹ; from the condition they set, they allowed him to annul to his fellow], it does not help at all: since he did not acquire the share they annulled to him in a way that he could carry in the courtyard, he cannot transfer it to his fellow.
Source: Sefaria — Shulchan Arukh HaRav, Orach Chayim 380. Sefaria gives no Kuntres Acharon entry for this siman. The text is copied as Sefaria serves it: in seif ב, a vowel sign (a cholam) follows the period that closes the sentence about locking the house; in seif ג, one letter is in square brackets; both are left as they are.
לשון הרב מול סעיף המחבר
Where the Rav's text differs from the Mechaber's seif
Each point sets side by side a seif of the Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch (its numbering, 4 seifim) and the corresponding seif of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (its own numbering, 7 seifim), in the order of the Rav's seifim, and notes only what the comparison of the texts shows. In the main, the two divisions correspond as follows (the Rav's seif → the Mechaber's seif): 1 and 2 → 1; 3 → 2; 4 → 3; 5, 6 and 7 → 4. What is missing from the Mechaber's text is not new for that reason: on this siman, several of the Rav's clarifications are already found in the Mishnah and the Gemara, in Rashi and the Rambam, in the Tur, the Beis Yosef, the Magen Avraham or the Taz, and the Mishnah Berurah, who writes after him, reports several of them; it even reads one of them in the Mechaber's own words (point ו). Each point names where they are found.
נקודה א — נוסח הביטול לדר עם ארבעה או חמשה (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:א)
Point א — The wording of the annulment when one lives with four or five (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:1)
The wording of the annulment
What the Mechaber writes: in seif 1 he writes « ואם דר עם ארבעה או חמשה צריך לבטל לכל א' וא' שיאמר רשותי מבוטלת לך ולך וי״א שדי שיאמר רשותי מבוטל' לכולכם » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:א): the wording “to you and to you” is stated without attribution, and the wording “to all of you” is brought as the view of some.
What the Rav writes: for annulling after nightfall, he gives the reason: « וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קוֹנִין קִנְיָן בְּשַׁבָּת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כַּאן אֵין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּקְנוּ הֵם רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא יְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ, וּמִמֵּילָא אֵין מִי שֶׁיֶּאֱסֹר עֲלֵיהֶם; וּלְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ מֻתָּר אַף בְּשַׁבָּת » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:א); then, for one who lives with four or five, he states as the rule the wording addressed to all, and specifies that annulling to one is not enough: « וְאִם דָּר עִם ד' אוֹ ה' — צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְכֻלְּכֶם", וְלֹא דַי שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁמְּבַטֵּל לוֹ כְּבָר עֵרֵב עִם הַשְּׁאָר » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:א); he adds « וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵּן, אַף לְמִי שֶׁבִּטֵּל לוֹ אָסוּר » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:א); then he brings the other wording as a view, and decides: « וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁלֹּא דַי שֶׁיֹּאמַר "רְשׁוּתִי מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְכֻלְּכֶם", אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ וְיֹאמַר "מְבֻטֶּלֶת לְךָ וּלְךָ". וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַלֵךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:א).
What is already found before him: the Tur already writes the wording “to all of you” alongside “to you and to you”, without reporting any dissent: « צריך לבטל לכל א' ואחד שיאמר רשותי מבוטלת לך ולך או יאמר לכולכם בכלל » (טור או״ח ש״פ); the Beis Yosef reports that the Maggid Mishneh derives it from Rashi's words: « ומ״ש או יאמר לכולכם בכלל בפ״ב מה״ע כתב ה״ה דהכי משמע מדברי רש״י בספ״ב דעירובין » (בית יוסף או״ח ש״פ), and that he considers the Rambam's wording on this point to require study. On annulling after nightfall, the Magen Avraham writes « דאסתלוקי רשותא בשבתא שרי » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק א); on annulling to each one, he writes, in the name of the Maggid Mishneh, « ואם לא עשה כן אף למי שביטל אסור » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק ב). The Taz reads in the Mechaber's seif that, according to the first view, “to all of you” is not enough, « משמע דלדיע' זו לא מהני לכולכם » (ט״ז או״ח ש״פ ס״ק א), and he proposes a reason: « ונרא' הטעם דמצינו רובו ככולו וע״כ אי אמר לכולכם אפשר דלא נתכוין רק על הרוב » (ט״ז או״ח ש״פ ס״ק א). That annulling to one is not enough even when that one has already made an eruv with the others, Rashi gives the reason: « דאע״ג דהאי דבטיל ליה עירב עם חבירו כי עירב מאתמול אדעתא דההיא חולקא לא עירב דההיא שעתא לאו דידיה הוא » (רש״י עירובין כ״ו ע״ב); the Biur Halachah, who writes after the Rav, brings it on this seif.
The difference: the Mechaber states “to you and to you” without attribution, and brings as the view of some that “to all of you” is enough; the Rav states “to all of you” as the rule — the wording the Tur already writes alongside “to you and to you” —, brings as a view that one must specify “to you and to you”, and writes that, as for the halachah, in rabbinic matters one follows the lenient view. The Mishnah Berurah, who writes after him, reports that the Eliyah Rabbah also concludes that “to all of you” is enough, « ולדינא מסיק הא״ר דהעיקר כהי״א דמהני גם כשאמר לכולכם » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק ה), and the sentence continues: « וכ״ז כשעומד נגד כולם ואמר להם לשון זה » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק ה) — the text does not say whether these last words are still the Eliyah Rabbah's; this specification does not appear in the Rav's seif 1. The reason for annulling after nightfall, and the prohibition that remains even for the one to whom he annulled when he did not annul to each, are already found in the Magen Avraham, the second in the name of the Maggid Mishneh; that annulling to one is not enough even when that one has already made an eruv with the others, Rashi already explains (above).
Practical consequence: one who lives with four or five and did not make an eruv must annul his domain to each of them; according to the Rav, the wording “my domain is annulled to all of you” is enough, since as for the halachah one follows the lenient view in rabbinic matters; annulling to only one of them is not enough, even if that one has already made an eruv with the others, and then it is forbidden even for the one to whom he annulled (380:1). On the specification the Mishnah Berurah writes (that he stand facing all of them and say this wording to them), consult your Rav.
נקודה ב — נעילת ביתו, כשביטל רשותו סתם (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ב)
Point ב — Locking his house, when he annulled his domain without specifying (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:2)
The locked house
What the Mechaber writes: in seif 1, for one who annulled his domain without specifying, he writes « אבל אסורין להוציא מביתו לחצר וגם הוא וי״א שצריך לנעול ביתו כדי שלא יבא להוציא באיסור ולא יפתחנו אלא כשרוצה לצאת ולבא וינעלנו מיד אחר צאתו ובואו » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:א): the view requiring him to lock the house is brought without a conclusion.
What the Rav writes: he writes the prohibition of carrying from his house to the courtyard, for them and for him, and adds each time that bringing in [from the courtyard] is likewise forbidden — for him, in parentheses; he gives the reason, « לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁהוּא כְּאוֹרֵחַ אֶצְלָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִבָּתֵּיהֶם לֶחָצֵר, אֲבָל תַּשְׁמִישׁ שֶׁמִּבֵּיתוֹ אוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ — אֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא אוֹרֵחַ » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ב); he brings the view about locking, « וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִנְעוֹל בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לְהוֹצִיא בְּאִסּוּר » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ב), and concludes « וְהַמֵּקֵל לֹא הִפְסִיד, כִּי יֵשׁ לוֹ עַל מִי לִסְמוֹךְ » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ב).
What is already found before him: on the Mechaber's words “from his house to the courtyard”, the Magen Avraham writes « וגם הוא אסור שהרי בביתו אין לומר שהוא אורח » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק ג). That the prohibition also applies to bringing into his house, the Mishnah already writes of his house: « בֵּיתוֹ אָסוּר מִלְּהַכְנִיס וּמִלְּהוֹצִיא לוֹ וְלָהֶם » (עירובין ס״ט ע״ב); and the Rambam: « בִּטֵּל לָהֶן זֶה שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב רְשׁוּת חֲצֵרוֹ בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין לְהוֹצִיא וּלְהַכְנִיס מִבָּתֵּיהֶן לֶחָצֵר וּמֵחָצֵר לְבָתֵּיהֶן אֲבָל לְבֵיתוֹ אָסוּר » (הלכות עירובין פ״ב ה״א). On locking, the Beis Yosef brings poskim who distinguish this case from that of the baraisa of the locked house, and the Rambam, who does not mention locking: « והתוספות והרא״ש בדף קכ״ה והמרדכי כתבו לחלק בין ההיא לאנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהם ולא עירב וגם הרמב״ם בפ״ב לא הזכיר הא דנועל ביתו » (בית יוסף או״ח ש״פ); he also reports that the Rosh later writes that one should be stringent, « מיהו אח״כ כתב הרא״ש ואפשר דבעי נעילת ביתו כל היום כשא״צ ליכנס ולצאת אבל בשעת כניסה ויציאה פותח ואח״כ נועל ולעיל מצינו דחיישינן דילמא אתא לאפוקי לאחר שביטל הילכך יש להחמיר כדפירש״י » (בית יוסף או״ח ש״פ), and he limits this to one who renounced only his courtyard: « מיהו נראה דהיינו דוקא במבטל רשות חצירו ולא רשות ביתו » (בית יוסף או״ח ש״פ).
The difference: the Mechaber leaves the view about locking without a conclusion; the Rav writes that one who is lenient has not lost, for he has someone to rely on. The Mishnah Berurah, who writes after him, writes « ובמקום הדחק יש לסמוך להקל שאין צריך נעילת בית » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק י״א): he writes this leniency for a pressing situation; the Rav's seif 2 writes it without that mention.
Practical consequence: if he annulled his domain without specifying, he annulled only the courtyard: they and he may carry from their houses to the courtyard; carrying from his house to the courtyard, or bringing in from the courtyard into his house, is forbidden to them and to him alike; some require that he lock his house and open it only to go out or come in; the Rav writes that one who is lenient has not lost (380:2). The Mishnah Berurah writes this leniency only for a pressing situation (ס״ק י״א): consult your Rav.
נקודה ג — ביטל גם רשות ביתו: שיחזיקו הם תחלה (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ג)
Point ג — He annulled his house as well: that they take possession first (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:3)
Who carries first
What the Mechaber writes: in seif 2 he writes « אם ביטל להם גם רשות ביתו מותרין בין הוא בין הם להוציא לחצר בין מביתו בין מבתיהם » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:ב), with no condition of order in the seif.
What the Rav writes: he gives the reason for the permission, « לְפִי שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹרֵחַ גָּמוּר אֶצְלָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ שׁוּם רְשׁוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִטְּלָה לָהֶם » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ג), and sets a precaution: that he not carry from his house to the courtyard before they have carried from their houses to the courtyard, « כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחֲזִיקוּ הֵם בֶּחָצֵר תְּחִלָּה, וְלֹא יַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּכְנִיסוּ הֵם מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שפ״א » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ג).
What is already found before him: in the Beis Yosef, the Mechaber himself gives the reason for the permission and sets this condition: « אבל במבטל רשות חצירו ורשות ביתו הוי אורח גמור לגבייהו ומותר להוציא אף מביתו כיון דלא נשאר לו שום רשות שלא ביטלו והוא שלא יוציא עד שיחזיקו הם וכמ״ש בסי' שאחר זה » (בית יוסף או״ח ש״פ). On the words of the seif, “whether from his house”, the Magen Avraham writes « היינו לאחר שהחזיקו בחצר » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק ה), referring to Siman 381.
The difference: the Mechaber's seif permits without condition; that this is after they have taken possession of the courtyard, the Mechaber himself writes in the Beis Yosef, with the reason of the full guest, and the Magen Avraham writes it on the seif; the Rav writes it within the seif, for carrying out to the courtyard and for bringing into his house, referring to Siman 381. The Mishnah Berurah, who writes after him, writes in ס״ק י״ב the same precaution, « וכן יזהר שלא יכניס מחצר לביתו קודם שיכניסו הם מהחצר לביתו » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק י״ב), and the same reason, « וטעם ההיתר דכיון שביטל גם רשות ביתו נעשה אורח גמור אצלם כיון שלא נשאר לו רשות שלא ביטל » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק י״ב).
Practical consequence: if he annulled to them the domain of his house as well, they and he may carry from his house to the courtyard and bring in, as in their houses; but he should not carry from his house to the courtyard before they have carried from their houses to the courtyard, nor bring in from the courtyard into his house before they have brought in from the courtyard into his own house (380:3; the Rav refers to Siman 381, where he counts this bringing in among the acts of taking possession, 381:1). This applies when he annuls in favour of many: in Siman 381, the Rav writes of this taking possession « וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הֶחֱזִיקוּ אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל אֶלָּא בְּיָחִיד שֶׁבִּטֵּל לְרַבִּים, אֲבָל לֹא בְּיָחִיד לְיָחִיד, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש״פ » (שו״ע הרב שפ״א:ד); for two only, see seif 6 (section 4, ⑥).
נקודה ד — שכירות במקום ביטול (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ד)
Point ד — Renting instead of annulling (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:4)
Renting
What the Mechaber writes: in seif 3 he writes « אם אינו רוצה לבטל להם רשותו אלא להשכירו יש אומרים שמועיל כמו ביטול וי״א שאינו מועיל » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:ג): two views, without a decision.
What the Rav writes: he brings the two views, each with its reason, « יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁשְּׂכִירוּת מוֹעֶלֶת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוֹעֶלֶת בְּנָכְרִי, לְפִי שֶׁהַשְּׂכִירוּת אֵינָהּ גָּרוּעַ מֵהַבִּטּוּל שֶׁהִיא מַתָּנָה בְּחִנָּם » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ד), then « וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁלֹּא תִקְּנוּ שְׂכִירוּת אֶלָּא בְּנָכְרִי שֶׁאֵין בִּטּוּלוֹ מוֹעִיל, אֲבָל לֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ד); and he decides: « וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה, בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ד).
What is already found before him: the Tur already writes, without reporting any dissent: « ואם אינו רוצה לבטל להם רשותו אלא להשכירו מועיל כמו ביטול » (טור או״ח ש״פ); the Beis Yosef reports that this is the view of the Rosh, against that of ר״מ: « ומ״ש ואם אינו רוצה לבטל להם רשותו אלא להשכירו מועיל כ״כ הרא״ש בר״פ הדר (דף קנג) גבי צדוקי ושלא כדברי ר״מ שסובר דלא מהני שכירות בישראל » (בית יוסף או״ח ש״פ), and that the Mordechai writes like ר״מ, towards whom the Rambam's words also lean. The Taz writes of the second view « זהו דעת הר״מ באשר״י ולא זכר טעם ע״ז » (ט״ז או״ח ש״פ ס״ק ב), and he proposes a reason for it, drawn from renting for less than a perutah (he refers to Siman 382). The Magen Avraham proposes, with hesitation, that even the second view would permit renting on a weekday, and forbid it only on Shabbos: « לולי דמסתפינא הייתי אומר דהר״מ מודה דבחול שרי דלמה יגרע מביטול אלא דשבת אסו' לשכור דהוי כמקח וממכר » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק ו). The Rav gives the first view the same comparison with annulment.
The difference: the Mechaber brings the two views without deciding; the Rav decides according to the lenient view: renting is effective for a Jew — as the Tur writes without reporting any dissent, and as the Beis Yosef reports in the name of the Rosh. The Mishnah Berurah, who writes after him, reports « ולענין הלכה הא״ר פוסק דאין שכירות מועלת בישראל כלל אבל שארי אחרונים מקילין בזה לענין ימי החול כהמ״א » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק י״ג). In seif 4, the Rav does not distinguish between Shabbos and a weekday; in Siman 382, he writes of renting from a non-Jew: « מֻתָּר לִשְׂכּוֹר מִן הַנָּכְרִי אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין בְּזֶה מִשּׁוּם מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר » (שו״ע הרב שפ״ב:ח); and, although renting too is forbidden on Shabbos because it resembles buying and selling: « מִכָּל מָקוֹם כַּאן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׂוֹכֵר רְשׁוּתוֹ כְּדֵי לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר הַטִּלְטוּל בִּלְבָד, אִם כֵּן הַדָּמִים שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה בְּעָלְמָא » (שו״ע הרב שפ״ב:ח); then: « אֲבָל לִקְנוֹת רְשׁוּת בְּשַׁבָּת — אָסוּר, אַף שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר טִלְטוּל, וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמַתְּנַת חִנָּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן ש״פ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן תקכ״ח » (שו״ע הרב שפ״ב:ח). He does not write there explicitly the case of renting from a Jew on Shabbos. In the same siman, he writes of a Jew who wants to rent rather than annul: « אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ אֶלָּא לְהַשְׂכִּיר — אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה נֶחְשָׁב לוֹ מָמוֹן כְּלָל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִתְרַצֶּה בּוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם הָיָה מְבַטֵּל בְּחִנָּם הָיָה מוֹעִיל, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה אֶלָּא לְהַשְׂכִּיר, וּשְׂכִירוּת אֵין כַּאן וּבִטּוּל אֵין כַּאן » (שו״ע הרב שפ״ב:ז) — the distinction from which the Taz starts to give a reason for the second view (ס״ק ב).
Practical consequence: according to the Rav, one who prefers to rent his domain rather than annul it may do so, and the renting is effective, since as for the halachah one follows the lenient view in rabbinic matters (380:4); but for a Jew, renting for less than a perutah is neither renting nor annulment (382:7). May one rent on Shabbos itself? The Magen Avraham proposes, with hesitation, that one may not, renting being like a commercial transaction (ס״ק ו); the Rav permits renting from a non-Jew even on Shabbos, the payment being only a gift, and does not write explicitly the case of a Jew (382:8): consult your Rav.
נקודה ה — רבים שביטלו ליחיד: להכניס מחצר לביתו (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ה)
Point ה — The many who annul to an individual: bringing in from the courtyard into his house (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:5)
What remains permitted to the many
What the Mechaber writes: in seif 4 he writes « אם בני החצר שעירבו מבטלים רשותם לאחר שלא עירב הוא מותר להוציא מביתו לחצר ולא מבתיהם » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:ד); a parenthesis in small print, which refers to the Beis Yosef, adds « אם לא שבטלו בפירוש גם רשות ביתם » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:ד); then « והם אסורים אף מביתו לחצר ולא אמרינן שיהיו כאורחים שאין רבים נעשו אורחים אצל יחיד » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:ד). He speaks neither of one who has already taken possession of the courtyard, nor of bringing in from the courtyard into a house.
What the Rav writes: he writes within the seif itself what the parenthesis says, « אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בִּטְּלוּ לוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ גַּם רְשׁוּת בָּתֵּיהֶם » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ה); he adds « וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם כְּבָר הֶחֱזִיק הוּא בֶּחָצֵר — אֵין זֶה מוֹעִיל שֶׁלֹּא יוּכְלוּ הָרַבִּים לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֶם » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ה); then « אֲבָל מֻתָּרִים לְהַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבֵיתוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נִרְאֶה חֲזָרָה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמַּכְנִיסִים לִרְשׁוּת שֶׁלָּהֶם שֶׁבִּטְּלוּהָ, דְּהַיְנוּ לֶחָצֵר » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ה); and « אֲבָל אֲסוּרִים לְהַכְנִיס מֵחָצֵר לְבָתֵּיהֶם אֲפִלּוּ אִם בִּטְּלוּ לוֹ גַּם רְשׁוּת בָּתֵּיהֶם » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ה).
What is already found before him: the Magen Avraham writes « ואפי' חזקה לא מהני » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק ז), which he says follows from Rabbeinu Yehonasan, and concludes, at the end of the same ס״ק, « וא״כ משמע דמותרים להכניס מחצר לביתו » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק ז).
The difference: in seif 4, the Mechaber speaks neither of taking possession nor of bringing into the houses; the Rav writes both, as the Magen Avraham had written — taking possession, saying that this follows from Rabbeinu Yehonasan; bringing into his house, by an inference (וא״כ משמע) —, and in addition writes the prohibition of bringing in from the courtyard into their houses, even if they annulled their houses to him as well. The Mishnah Berurah, who writes after him, reports the Magen Avraham, « וכתב המ״א דלא אמרינן זה אלא כשהם מוציאים מבית לחצר אבל כשהם מכניסים מחצר לבית אין זה נקרא השתמשות בחצר ולא הוי כרוצים לזכות בחצר » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק ט״ז), then « אבל בא״ר כתב בשם הרבה פוסקים שגם להכניס מחצר לבית אסור וכ״כ באבן עוזר » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק ט״ז).
Practical consequence: if the residents who made an eruv annul their domain to an individual who did not, he carries from his house to the courtyard, but not from their houses, unless they explicitly annulled their houses to him as well; they do not carry, even from his house to the courtyard, and even if he has already taken possession of the courtyard; they may bring in from the courtyard into his house, but not into their houses, even if they annulled those to him as well; and they do not carry from their houses to the courtyard (380:5). On bringing in from the courtyard into his house, the Mishnah Berurah reports that the Eliyah Rabbah forbids it in the name of many poskim (ס״ק ט״ז): consult your Rav.
נקודה ו — המקבל ביטול שחוזר ומבטל לחבירו (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ז)
Point ו — One who received an annulment and then annuls to his fellow (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:7)
The passed-on annulment
What the Mechaber writes: at the end of seif 4 he writes « ואפילו אמר לא' אני מבטל לך על מנת שתחזור ותבטל לחבירך אינו מועיל » (שו״ע או״ח ש״פ:ד): the seif writes explicitly only the case of the condition, which it introduces with “even” (ואפילו).
What the Rav writes: he first writes the case without a condition, « וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם חָזַר הָאֶחָד וּבִטֵּל לַחֲבֵרוֹ — אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ז), with its reason; then the case of the condition, which does not help either, and he gives the reason: « שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בְּחֵלֶק שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ לוֹ בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיּוּכַל לְטַלְטֵל בֶּחָצֵר, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַקְנוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ » (שו״ע הרב ש״פ:ז).
What is already found before him: the case without a condition, and its reason, are already in the Gemara: « לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּהֲדַר חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ וּבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לִישְׁתְּרֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּכֵיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּבַטֵּיל לָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ שַׁרְיוּתָא בְּהַאי חָצֵר » (עירובין ס״ט ע״ב); and in the Rambam: « וַאֲפִלּוּ חָזַר הָאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב וּבִטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ לַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלֹּא עֵרֵב הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּטְּלוּ לוֹ הַמְעָרְבִין אָסוּר הָיָה » (הלכות עירובין פ״ב ה״ד). Rabbeinu Yehonasan writes it in the name of a baraisa, with its reason, as the Beis Yosef reports: « כתב ה״ר יהונתן בפירוש המשנה תני בברייתא שאע״פ שחזר השני וביטל רשותו לחבירו אסור להוציא לחצר דכיון שתיכף שביטלו אותן שעירבו לאותן שלא עירבו לא הותר לטלטל בחצר שוב לא מהני ליה ביטול חבירו » (בית יוסף או״ח ש״פ); the reason for the case of the condition is already in the Tur: « כיון שלא זכה בחלק שביטלו לו בענין שיוכל לטלטל בחצר אינו יכול לחזור ולהקנותה לחבירו » (טור או״ח ש״פ). The Taz writes on these words of the Mechaber both cases, each with its reason: « כיון שתיכף שביטלו אותן שעירבו לאותן שלא עירבו לא הותר לטלטל בחצר כיון שהיו שנים שוב לא מהני ביטול א' מהם לחבירו ואפי' ע״מ שאמר לא מועיל כיון שלא זכה בחלק שביטלו לו בענין שיוכל לטלטל בחצר אינו יכול להקנו' לחבירו » (ט״ז או״ח ש״פ ס״ק ד); the Magen Avraham writes « כיון דלא אקני ליה שיהא הוא מותר אינו מועיל » (מגן אברהם ש״פ ס״ק ט).
The difference: the Mechaber writes explicitly only the case of the condition, introduced by “even”; the Mishnah Berurah, who writes after the Rav, reads in this “even” the case without a condition: « ר״ל דלא מיבעי אם לא פירש שיחזור ויבטל לחבירו אלא שביטל סתם לראשון והראשון מעצמו חזר וביטל חלק של עצמו וגם חלק שקיבל דלא מהני » (משנה ברורה ש״פ ס״ק כ״ג). The Rav writes explicitly, before the case of the condition, the case where one then annuls to the other without a condition, each with its reason — the first case and its reason are already found in the Gemara and the Rambam, then in Rabbeinu Yehonasan and the Taz; the reason for the second, in the Tur, which the Taz takes up.
Practical consequence: many who did not make an eruv may annul their domain to an individual who did not, or to many who did, each to each; to two who did not make an eruv, or more, one does not annul, and if one of them then annuls to the other, it does not help, even if the first ones set this as a condition (380:7).
שיחות, מאמרים ואגרות הרבי
The words of the Rebbe on the themes of Siman 380
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 380, in the Chabad sensibility, in the order of its seifim. The seif numbers are the Rav's.
For the Chabad Chassid — Siman 380
- ① Annulling one's domain: one who forgot to make an eruv with the residents of the courtyard forbids them; he annuls to them the domain he has in the courtyard, saying “my domain is annulled to you” or “my domain is acquired by you”, without a kinyan sudar; he may do so after nightfall, since he only removes himself from his domain; if he lives with four or five, he must annul to each of them, and according to the Rav the wording “to all of you” is enough; annulling to only one of them is not enough, even if that one made an eruv with the others. For the specification the Mishnah Berurah writes, see section 2, point א, and consult your Rav. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:1.
- ② Annulling without specifying: he annulled only the courtyard; they and he may carry from their houses to the courtyard; carrying from his house to the courtyard, or bringing in from the courtyard into his house, is forbidden to them and to him alike; some require that he lock his house and open it only to go out or come in; the Rav writes that one who is lenient has not lost, for he has someone to rely on (on the Mishnah Berurah's reservation, see section 2, point ב). Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:2.
- ③ Annulling his house as well: if he annulled to them the domain of his house as well, they and he may carry from his house to the courtyard and bring in, as in their houses; but he should not carry from his house to the courtyard before they have carried from their houses to the courtyard, nor bring in from the courtyard into his house before they have brought in from the courtyard into his own house; the Rav refers to Siman 381, where he counts this bringing-in among the acts of taking possession (381:1); this, when he annuls in favour of many, and not in favour of one (381:4; for two only, see ⑥). Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:3; 381:4.
- ④ Renting: if he wants to rent his domain rather than annul it, two views are brought; the Rav writes that, as for the halachah, in rabbinic matters one follows the lenient view: renting is effective; in Siman 382, he writes that for a Jew, renting for less than a perutah is neither renting nor annulment (382:7). For renting on Shabbos itself — he permits renting from a non-Jew even on Shabbos (382:8) —, see section 2, point ד, and consult your Rav. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:4; 382:7, 8.
- ⑤ The many who annul to an individual: if the residents who made an eruv annul their domain to an individual who did not, he carries from his house to the courtyard, but not from their houses, unless they explicitly annulled their houses to him as well; they do not carry, even from his house to the courtyard, and even if he has already taken possession of the courtyard; they may bring in from the courtyard into his house, but not into their houses, even if they annulled those to him as well; and they do not carry from their houses to the courtyard. On bringing into his house, see section 2, point ה, and consult your Rav. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:5.
- ⑥ Two residents only, or many who annul to many: if only two live in the courtyard without having made an eruv and one annuls to the other, his law is that of the many with respect to an individual, for an individual becomes a guest only with respect to many, and “many” is no fewer than two; likewise, many who did not make an eruv and annul their domain to many who did do not become guests with them. The Rav writes it explicitly: even an individual does not become a guest with an individual. The Biur Halachah, which writes after him, reports contrary views, which seif 6 of the Rav does not follow (see level 1, section 6); consult your Rav. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:6.
- ⑦ To whom one may annul: many who did not make an eruv may annul their domain to an individual who did not, or to many who did, provided each annuls to each; to two who did not make an eruv, or more, one does not annul, and if one of them then annuls to the other, it does not help, even if the first ones set this as a condition. Reference: Shulchan Aruch HaRav 380:7.
⚠ This section presents the Chabad halachic conduct. For any concrete question: consult your Rav.