In the last edition, we discussed the requirement to rent the right of use of the homes of non-Jews within the Eiruv, for the Eiruv to be effective. The rental can also be performed with the employee of the home-owner.
Instead of renting from each non-Jew individually, one can rent the right of use from the government or authority such as the police if they have rights of entry to the houses within their jurisdiction.
What if the non-Jew or their employee dies
If during the duration of the rental, the non-Jew rents their house to another non-Jew, a new Sechiras Reshus is not required. However, if the non-Jew dies or sells their home, a new Sechiras Reshus is required from the new owner or inheritor.
If one rented the Reshus from an employee (who lives with the owner) for a set time-duration, even if the employee ceased to work within the time period or was terminated or died, the rental remains in effect.
The rationale is that renting from the employee is considered as though one has rented from the Baal Habayis themselves and it is as though they consented to the rental for this duration.
If the rental was performed with the employee without specifying a time-period, once the employee ceases to work for the owner, the rental is terminated. The reason is because presumably the Baal Habayis would only empower their employee to “rent out” their property while they are still in their employ.
If the king or government officer dies
The same Halachos apply when renting from the treasurer or officer of the king, where the officer is terminated and no longer receives a salary from the treasury or dies.
If the rental was for a fixed time-duration, it would remain in effect for the period of the rental whereas if no time-duration was specified, the Sechiras Reshus would expire. Eshel Avraham writes that a rental that is specified to be “forever” is considered like a rental with a fixed duration.
The Chacham Tzvi writes that only a rental for a short duration of one or two years would continue to remain in effect after the treasurer or officer ceases to be employed. However, a long fixed-duration Sechirus would cease to apply. This is because presumably the king would not consent to their officer entering a lengthy arrangement. (Even though during the employ of the officer, we do not require the consent of the king).
He further writes that if the king dies, even if the treasurer is still alive, the Sechirus is terminated unless they are appointed by the new king.
Ginas Veradim argues with the ruling of the Chacham Tzvi and “even a rental of 200 years” would continue to be effective for the full term after the death of the treasurer. Even if the king dies, the Sechirus would continue. This is because the monarchy still continues and the new king is bound to fulfil the enactments of the previous king.
(The above applies only in the case of a Sechirus which had a fixed time duration. An unspecified rental would lapse on the death of the king.)
The Minchas Elozor writes that the Chacham Tzvi wrote about the kings in his time who had absolute power. In the times (and location) of the Minchas Elozor, the land was owned by “the municipality” (the Shtot) and the king was merely the senior-most figure of the government, who himself took a salary from the treasury. Therefore, no new Sechirus is required after the death of the king, because the king is merely a representative of “the land” which “does not die”. He says the same is true “in all free lands”.
This discussion is relevant in modern-day Eiruvin, where the Sechiras Reshus was made with the Police commissioner or the head of the fire department and they subsequently retire. The Sechirus is not performed with them as an individual, but rather as a representative of the authority that they represent. Therefore, their actions continue to have full force even after retiring. Presumably based on this logic, the Sechirus would continue to be effective even if it did not specify any time-duration.
Change of government
If there is an overthrow of the government system, the Sechirus certainly ceases and a new Sechiras Reshus is required. The Minchas Elozor writes that in his time, the king was removed and a free-country was established with a democratically-elected government and a new Sechiras Reshus should be made. Presumably he is referring to the 1918 revolution in Hungary, where the Monarchy was overthrown and replaced by a short-lived democratic republic.
Practical Sechiras Reshus points
Practically, the Sechiras Reshus should have a specified time duration. It can be made for an extended period of time. It is also advisable to specify that if we forget to renew the Sechirus at the end of the time-period, it is assumed to continue to be in effect indefinitely. It is also advisable to make a Sechirus for the entire city, so that if the Eiruv is ever extended, the new areas are covered by the Sechirus.
There is a great advantage to making the Sechiras Reshus from the government (as opposed to individual non-Jews) in a place where there are Jews who do not believe in the laws of Eiruv. Since they are Jewish, one cannot rent from them. But since they do not believe in the laws of Eiruv, they will not likely be Mevatel their property and one cannot be Mezakeh them. Renting their property from the government circumvents this problem.
Kaf Hachaim writes when making the Sechirus from the king’s officer, the custom in Salonika and Yerushalaim was to that the heads of the Jewish community would take the keys of the city home for one night. Since even a weak Sechirus suffices, this is only an extra Hiddur.
In a democratic system, even if elections bring a change of government, the Sechiras Reshus continues to be effective. Unlike an overthrow, a new elected government is required to honour and maintain the actions of the former government. (This is especially so when the Sechirus was performed with the police, since the police continues to maintain their authority irrespective of who the government is).
References:
- Rashba Teshuvos Meyuchasos 207
- Ta”z 382:10, Elya Rabbah 382:9, Shulchan Aruch Harav 382:11
- Kaf Hachaim 382:72
- Rashba Teshuvos 5:6. Shulchan Aruch Harav 382:17
- Ta”z OC 382:15
- Kaf Hachaim 382:73
- The Beis Yosef writes that this is so even if the employee kept the money of the rental for themselves, because presumably the king was not Makpid
- 382:10
- Siman 6
- This time duration is specified by the Rashba quoted in the Beis Yosef
- OC Klal 2 Siman 22-23
- Kaf Hachaim 382:79
- 4:14
- ibid
- The Takana of renting was only made for non-Jews. Based on Rambam writing about Tzedukim
- Ginas Veradim OC 3:22. See Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 2:62 why this works ‘against the will’ of the owner
- 382:78
