Question:

I live in an apartment building in Crown Heights and we are the ones who performed the Eiruv Chatzeiros for the residents of the building. The matzah used for the Eiruv is kept in my apartment. My question is: when I go away for Shabbos, does the Eiruv still function properly for the rest of the building? Do I need to leave a key with someone so that my apartment remains accessible in theory? And what if someone else is staying in my apartment while I’m away—does that change anything?

Answer:

If you are away for Shabbos and your home will be empty, you should leave a key with a neighbor or someone in your building so the Eruv Chatzeros food in your apartment remains accessible. Nonetheless, if you are home for Shabbos and are simply going to be away from your house during Berin Hashmashos of the entrance of Shabbos [such as if everyone in the family has gone to Shul] then there is no need to leave a key with somebody else. Practically, in order not to forget, it is proper when a person makes an Eruv Chatzeros for him to initially leave a key with a neighbor to cover the eventuality that they may one day go away for Shabbos. In the event that they already left for Shabbos, and a key was not left with a neighbor hence leaving them without access to the Eruv Chatzeros food, the neighbors should make a new Eruv Chatzeros for that Shabbos, without a blessing, unless access to the Eruv is verified with the owner, such as through an unlocked window.

Explanation:

Eruv Chatzeiros is a rabbinic mitzvah enacted to permit carrying within shared courtyards or buildings on Shabbos, which would otherwise be restricted due to it Rabbuinically being simialr to a piublic domain. By joining the residents together through shared food, the Eruv transforms multiple private domains into a single halachic entity. This practice is essential for enabling the practical observance of Shabbos in apartment complexes and similar living arrangements.

Now, it is a clear ruling in the Mishnah and Talmud and Poskim  that the food which is used for the Eiruv Chatzeiros must be accessible to the residents of the courtyard to eat on Shabbos. The reason for this is simple: as the entire workaround of the Eiruv Chatzeiros food is based on the idea that all the neighbors are sharing ownership of the same food which they can eat together, and hence they are no longer considered diversified. Rather they are now considered like one family and hence the area now has the full status of a Reshus Hayachid to permit carrying on Shabbos.

Hence, for this reason, it is a requirement that the individual who made the Eruv to be willing to share it with all of his neighbors, and if he is not willing, then it is completely invalid. It is for this reason we do not perform the Eiruv Chatzeiros with food that is designated to be eaten on Shabbos by the host, as surely he will not share it with all of his neighbors.

Furthermore, due to this reason, if it the Eruv food became locked up in an area to which the key has been lost and the only way to access it is through breaking through it in a way that is forbidden to be done on Shabbos, then it is no longer valid, and is considered as if it does not exist. However, if one is able to access in a way that does not involve transgressing Shabbos, then it remains valid even though one has lost the key. So, if it was locked in a room but one is able to access the room through a side window, then it still remains valid. Furthermore, if it is technically possible to break through the room without transgressing a Torah prohibition, then it likewise remains valid.

Now, the Poskim discuss whether this clause requires one to not even potentially transgress a rabbinical prohibition, and whether or not it is limited to a Shabbos prohibition, or to any Torah prohibition. For example, breaking down the door may involve only a rabbinical prohibition of Soser and hence since it is possible to access the food without transgressing a biblical prohibition, perhaps the food of the Eiruv should remain valid in its location. [To clarify, this does not mean that the neighbors must actually break through the door on Shabbos God forbid, but simply that the Eiruv remains valid due to the possibility of accessing it without biblical Shabbos transgression.]

Practically, the Poskim all agree in theory, that the Eiruv remains valid even if it is only accessible through rabbinical transgression and it is only if one must transgress a biblical prohibition in order to access it that the Eiruv becomes invalid. The reason for this is because the sages permitted one to perform a rabbinical prohibition during Bein Nhashmashos for the sake of the mitzvah, and performing Eiruv Chatzeiros is a mitzvah. Nonetheless, the Poskim debate the extent of this leniency and whether it only applies to transgressions which are intrinsically rabbinical in nature, or does it apply to any rabbinical transcription even though it is an offshoot of the original biblical prohibition. This creates a debate regarding whether having ability to break down the door to the room which contains the food is considered a valid form of access. On the one hand, breaking down a door on Shabbos is the Melacha of Soser which is one of the 39 principal Melachos. On the other hand, when done for the sake of destruction it is only rabbinical. Practically, this matter is debated between the Tur who are stringent, and the Tosafus and Magen Avraham who are lenient. Now, even if one were to be lenient in this debate, there is another factor to take into account when dealing with a neighbor’s house which is the prohibition against breaking their door due to stealing and damage. You see, the transgression is not limited to a Shabbos prohibition, but to any prohibition, and hence if accessing the Eiruv would require one to break down his neighbor’s door without permission than this in itself would make it prohibited due to the stealing prohibition. The reason for this is because the entire idea is that the food remains practically accessible to all of the neighbors, and if there’s any Biblical impediment which makes the food not accessible, irrelevant of what that impediment is, then it is no longer valid. [Accordingly, argument can be made that one who leaves the Eiruv food in his house needs to give theoretical permission for all of his neighbors to access his house to eat the Eiruv food, if they would so wish.]

Based on all this we can now analyze the answer to the above question: Since it is required for the neighbors to retain access to the Eiruv food, if the family which has the food in their home will not be around for Shabbos, and have naturally locked their doors, then the Eiruv is no longer valid as it is not accessible without breaking down the door and trespassing to their property. For this reason, Rabbanim of today recommend for the person housing the Eiruv to leave a key with another neighbor in order so they have access in case they will be away for Shabbos. Another alternative for one who has a combination door lock is to simply give a neighbor access to the code. Anotehr option is to leave a side door unlocked, or a window unlocked.

Now, all this is initially required, however, Bedieved, if this was not done and the family went away for Shabbos it can be argued that it still remains valid, being that it is possible that they left a window which is not locked through which they can access the home. Likewise, it is possible that their doors are able to be picked by a professional lock picker without transgressing any Shabbos prohibitions, and perhaps one can rely on the leninet opinions who validate the Eiruv even if it is accessible only through breaking down the door being that doing so is only rabbinical. Therefore, there may still be access to the Eiruv food. Practically, due to this, we recommend that the neighbors perform a new Eiruv for that Shabbos without a blessing.

Now all this is the case that no one will be home for Shabbos. However, if someone else is staying in your apartment over Shabbos—such as a guest or family member—they are considered to be occupying the space, and the Eiruv remains valid through their presence. In that case, there’s no need to leave a key with anyone else.

Now, as far as if there will be no one home during Bein hashmashos of the entrance of Shabbos due to them all going to shul and the like, this does not pose a problem being that they are still in the vicinity and can be summoned by any neighbor to open the door of their house to access the food, and therefore the food remains accessible and valid. Accordingly, there is no need to leave a key with the neighbor when you are simply leaving your house on Shabbos itself.

Sources: Admur 394:2-3 “(2)The Eruv must be in a place during bein hashmashot (twilight) where it is fit to be taken and eaten. Therefore, if a pile (of stones or debris) fell on it and it cannot be retrieved unless one digs with a shovel or pickaxe, it is not a valid Eruv, because such digging constitutes a full Torah-level melacha (prohibited labor), which is forbidden even during bein hashmashot. However, if the obstacle is only a rabbinic prohibition (shevut), the Sages did not decree against it during bein hashmashot when it is for the sake of a mitzvah—as explained in Siman 361:10. And the Eruv itself is considered a mitzvah, since it prevents transgression of prohibitions, as explained there. (3) If the Eruv was placed in a tower and locked, and the key was lost before nightfall, and it is impossible to retrieve the Eruv without performing a Torah-level melacha, it is considered as if the Eruv is lost and invalid, since it cannot be eaten. However, if the key is found on Shabbat, and it was in a place from which it could be brought without violating a Torah-level melacha, then the Eruv is valid—even though the key was not in hand during bein hashmashot—because it was likely to be found, we consider it as if it had been in hand retroactively.; Admur 366:8 “The Eruv must be made in such a way that none of the participants object to its use—even if another person were to eat from it. If someone does object, the Eruv is invalid. After all, the very name “Eruv” implies mixing and unity; it must reflect a partnership that is pleasant and agreeable, without anyone protesting against another. Therefore, one must be careful not to use for the Eruv an item that was specially prepared for personal use on Shabbos. For if another participant were to request it, the owner might refuse to give it, and that undermines the shared nature of the Eruv.”; Michaber and Rama 394:2-3; Tur 394; Rambam Eruvin 6:1; Mishneh Eruvin 34b; Gemara Eruvin 35a; Tosafus ibid; M”A 394:2; P”M 366 M”Z; 364 A”A 2; Kitzur SHU”A 94:10; “The Eruv must be placed in a location that is accessible during bein hashmashot (twilight) to all the homeowners for whom it was made. Therefore, if—Heaven forbid—a corpse is present in the house or in the neighborhood, and one of the homeowners is a Kohen who cannot enter the area during bein hashmashot due to the prohibition of becoming impure (tumah), the Eruv is invalid. This is because the Kohen is unable to access the Eruv at the critical halachic moment, and thus it does not fulfill the requirement of being available to all participants. (See Pri Megadim, Mishbetzot Zahav, end of Siman 366.)”; Aruch Hashulchan 394:3; Yashiv Yitzchak 32:18; Nesivos Leshabbos 31:78 footnote 228; Koveitz Beis Talmud Lehorah 4:50 [p. 119 footnote 136]

Summary: Eruv Chatzeiros Food Accessibility in Apartment Buildings

In order for an Eruv Chatzeiros to be valid, the food must remain accessible to all residents covered by the eruv. If the food is kept in one resident’s apartment, and that resident goes away for Shabbos, they should leave a key with a neighbor so others can access the food if needed. If no one has access because the apartment is locked and empty, a new eruv is to be made without a blessing. However, if someone else is staying in the apartment, or family members are present, the eruv remains valid. If the resident is only away briefly (such as going to synagogue at the start of Shabbos), this does not invalidate the eruv as the food is still accessible in principle.