1. A lane with three walls is called a closed lane.¹In Talmudic times, it was not customary that homes open to streets, as is the practice today. Instead, several homes would open up to a single courtyard. These courtyards would open up to paths or lanes that led to the public marketplaces and the thoroughfares of the towns. Sometimes, these paths or lanes would end in a cul-de- sac, and on other occasions they would lead from one thoroughfare to another. In contrast, a lane that has only two walls, one opposite the other, and thus passersby enter from one end and leave from the other, is referred to as an open lane.²This refers to a lane leading from one marketplace or thoroughfare to another. Needless to say, the lane must be less than sixteen cubits wide. If it is sixteen cubits wide, it would be deemed as a public domain according to the Rambam, as mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 1.

2. What must be done to allow people to carry within a closed lane?³This question applies within a city that is not surrounded by an eruv. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:2), a lane with three walls is considered to be a carmelit. Thus according to the Torah itself, such an area is regarded as a makom patur, and one is permitted to carry within it. The Rabbis nevertheless forbade carrying within such an area, unless a person constructed either of the following structures: a lechi - a pole constructed at one of the corners of the fourth side - or a korah - a beam constructed across the entrance. (See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh.) We should erect one pole⁴The dimensions required for a pole and a beam are mentioned in Halachot 12 and 13. When a pole is constructed at the corner of the fourth side of the lane, the lane is considered to be enclosed and thus is viewed as a private domain. (See Halachah 9 of this chapter and Chapter 14, Halachah 1.) at the fourth side or extend a beam above it;⁵As explained in Halachah 9, extending a beam over the lane is a Rabbinic measure that makes a distinction between such a lane and a lane that is not enclosed at all. Because of this distinction, the Rabbinic prohibition against carrying in such a lane is lifted. this is sufficient.⁶This refers merely to the process of enclosing the area in question. In addition, as mentioned in Hilchot Eruvin 1:1-2, it is necessary for the people who share the lane to join together in an eruv, each contributing a certain measure of food. The beam or the pole is considered to have enclosed the fourth side, making it [equivalent to] a private domain.⁷The Rambam's definition of a lane follows the conception of Rabbenu Chanan'el in his commentary on Eruvin 12a. Most other Rishonim [including Rashi (Eruvin, loc. cit.), Tosafot, the Rashba, and the Ra'avad] differ, and maintain that as long as a lane has three walls (or two walls and a pole on the third side), it is considered a private domain according to the Torah. (See Be'ur Halachah 363:1.)

The difference between the Rambam's view and that of these other authorities does not concern the license to carry, for all agree that it is forbidden to carry within the lane until a pole or a beam is constructed at the fourth side. Instead, the difference involves transferring an article into such a lane with three walls from the public domain. According to the Rambam, one is not liable from such a transfer, while according to the other authorities, one is.

Thus, carrying is permitted within it.

According to Torah law, one is permitted to carry [within an area enclosed] by three partitions.⁸As mentioned above, according to the Rambam, one may carry in this lane, because any enclosure with three walls or less is deemed as a carmelit. According to the Torah, there is no restriction against carrying in such a domain. [The requirement to enclose the] fourth side is Rabbinic [in origin]. Therefore, it is sufficient to erect a pole or a beam.

3. What must be done to allow people to carry within an open lane? A frame of an entrance must be erected at one side and either a pole or a beam must be erected at the other side.⁹This ruling follows that of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi in his Halachot. Nevertheless, there are many authorities who differ and maintain that this ruling applies only when the lane opens to a carmelit on at least one side. If it opens up to a public domain on both sides, it is not sufficient to erect a frame of an entrance, and a proper gate must be erected (Maggid Mishneh). The Rambam's ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 364:1).

An L-shaped¹⁰Our translation is based on the gloss and drawings of the Maggid Mishneh. lane is governed by the same rules as an open lane.¹¹The Rambam rules that all that is necessary is a frame of an entrance at one opening of the lane, and a pole or a beam at the other end. Nothing is necessary at the bend of the lane. This follows the opinion of Rav (Eruvin 6a, 8b).

Rashi and Rabbenu Asher, however, interpret Rav's ruling differently and require that a frame of an entrance be constructed at the lane's bend, and a pole or a beam be constructed at both the lane's openings. They explain that this is necessary because, unless the frame of an entrance is constructed at the bend, a person who does not walk through the entire lane will not be aware of the pole or the beam at the other entrance to the lane. This is the view accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3).

4. When a lane is level, but descends on an incline to the public domain, or if its entrance to the public domain is level but it itself descends on an incline,¹²Based on Shabbat 100a and the Tosefta, Shabbat 11:4, the Ra'avad and the Rashba define this as referring to an incline of ten handbreadths within four cubits. If the incline is gentler than that, this leniency does not apply. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:36) accepts this definition. it does not require either a pole or a beam, for it is clearly distinct from the public domain.¹³According to the Torah, one is allowed to carry within the lane, and the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin. Thus, since the steep incline makes the lane distinct from the public domain (and distinct from other lanes), there is no need for any further measures to permit carrying.

From the wording chosen by the Rambam, however, it appears that he does not consider the incline as a wall enclosing the lane (see the Ramah, Orach Chayim, loc. cit.), but rather as a distinguishing factor similar to a beam. Accordingly, a person who transfers an article into this lane from the public domain would not be held liable.

5. When one side of a lane ends at the sea and the other side ends at a public garbage dump, there is no need for [further measures to enable carrying to be permitted].¹⁴This refers to a lane that has walls on either side. Thus, it is considered as if the lane had barriers on all four sides. For the garbage dump can be assumed to be ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. Thus, it is considered to be an added wall, and the sea itself can be assumed to be ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is also considered to be a wall (Mishnah Berurah 363:118).

[Leniency is granted,] because a public garbage dump is unlikely to be removed,¹⁵This law does not apply regarding a private garbage dump, because the possibility exists that such a dump will be removed at any time. and we do not suspect that the sea will wash up mud and rocks [which will dry out and create a surface level with that of the lane].¹⁶Our translation follows the commentary of Rabbenu Chanan'el and Rashi on Eruvin 8a. Although both these authorities agree on the definition of the word שרטון, they quote different versions of that Talmudic passage. Rabbenu Chanan'el follows the version quoted here by the Rambam, which states that "we do not suspect that the sea will wash up a שרטון." The version of the passage quoted by Rashi (and printed in our texts of the Talmud today) states, "we suspect that the sea will wash up a שרטון."

Significantly, this difference in approach to this passage has been preserved. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:29) follows the ruling of the Rambam, while subsequent Ashkenazic authorities and the Ramah follow that of Rashi which forbids carrying in such a lane. According to this view, it is impossible to enclose it with an eruv.

6. [The following rules apply to] an open lane that ends in the middle of a yard¹⁷See the definition of the term רחבה in Chapter 16, Halachah 10. belonging to many different people: If [the end of the lane] is not opposite the entrance to the yard,¹⁸Were the lane to end directly opposite the entrance from the yard to the public domain, a more stringent ruling would be applied and it would be necessary to construct a frame of an entrance. See Halachot 3 and 18. it is considered to be closed and does not require any further measures at the side of the yard. If, however, it ends at the sides of the yard, it is forbidden [to carry within the lane].¹⁹The Maggid Mishneh explains that were the lane to end at the side of the yard, it would resemble an L-shaped lane. Hence, the laws mentioned in Halachah 3 would apply. When, however, the lane does not end at the side of the yard, it has no resemblance to an L-shaped lane. Therefore, the entrance to the yard is itself considered a distinguishing factor. (Note, however, Rabbenu Asher and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 365:3, which require that the people whose homes open up to the lane and the yard join together in an eruv.)

Significantly, according to the Maggid Mishneh, the word "forbidden" used by the Rambam, appears to mean "requires an eruv." This would concur with the Ra'avad's interpretation of Eruvin 7b which states that if the people whose homes open to the yard join in an eruv together with the people whose homes open to the lane, it is permitted to carry in the lane even if it ends in the side of the yard.

Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) which mentions that an eruv can never be effective for such a lane. See the explanation of this ruling in the Mishnah Berurah 365:23.

Moreover, if the yard belongs to a single individual, it is forbidden [to carry within the lane] even if the lane leads into the middle of the yard. [The rationale for this prohibition is that] at times, [the owner] may build on one of the sides of the yard. [After these improvements have been made,] it is possible that the lane will end at the side of the yard.

7. Permission [to carry within] a lane because a pole or a beam was erected is granted only when [the following conditions are met]:²⁰The fundamental principle behind these conditions is that an enclosure that is used by a private person will afford greater privacy than an enclosure used by many people. Therefore, it is necessary that the enclosure be more substantial (the Rashba as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

[several] houses and courtyards open into it;²¹When only a single house or courtyard opens to a lane, it bears a far closer resemblance to private property.

it is four cubits long or more;²²If a lane is not more than four cubits or if it is square shaped, it appears like a courtyard. and

its length exceeds its width.

If, however, the length²³I.e., the distance from one entrance to the other. and the width²⁴The distance between the two walls on either side. of a lane are equal, it is considered to be a courtyard, and permission [to carry within is granted] only [when one erects] two poles - there is no minimum requirement with regard to their width - one at each of its sides, or one erects a barrier four handbreadths [wide]²⁵A barrier of this length is considered to be a wall, and thus a portion of this side of the lane is also considered to be enclosed. at one side.²⁶Although the requirement to construct two poles or a barrier is more stringent than the norm for a lane, it still represents a leniency. There is no need to construct the frame of an entrance as in a courtyard.

The Rambam's ruling (with several additions) is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26). In his gloss, the Ramah adds that it has become customary to enclose all lanes with the frame of an entrance - i.e., two poles, and a cord above them.

8. When the length²⁷The length of a courtyard refers to the space from its entrance to the opposite wall (Maggid Mishneh). Although there are other interpretations, this is the definition accepted as halachah (Mishnah Berurah 363:116). of a courtyard exceeds its width, it is considered to be a lane, and [carrying within it] is permitted [only when one erects] a pole or a beam.

[When several] houses and courtyards²⁸Our translation is based on the second interpretation of the Rambam's words offered by the Maggid Mishneh, which is supported by the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Eruvin 5:15. From that source, it appears that the Rambam conceives of a lane as having several courtyards and several houses open up to it. If, however, there is only one house opening up to it, although it contains several courtyards, or one courtyard although it contains several houses, it is not sufficient.

Rashi (Eruvin 12b), however, offers a different interpretation, explaining that to be considered a lane, an enclosure must have two courtyards open up to it, and each of the courtyards must have two houses open up to it. This view is accepted by the Rashba and by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26). do not open into a lane - e.g., only one house or one courtyard does - and similarly, [when] a lane is not four cubits long, permission [to carry within is granted] only [when one erects] two poles²⁹Note the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which states that when a lane is less than four cubits long, the frame of an entrance is required to enclose it. Significantly, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:27 quotes the Rambam's ruling and not that of the Shulchan Aruch. (See also Mishnah Berurah 363:93.) or a barrier (more than)³⁰In the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah, the word, ומשהו (lit. "and something") is added in parentheses. Rav David Arameah and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) interpret this to mean that the four handbreadths must be "ample." B'nei Binyamin explains that there is a printing error and the word משהו refers to the poles as in the previous halachah. Rav Kapach maintains that the word is a printer's addition and does not exist in the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. four handbreadths [wide].

9. When a lane is not three handbreadths wide,³¹The Kessef Mishneh (and his view is quoted by the Magen Avraham 363:29) explains that even if the majority of the lane is wider than three handbreadths, since its entrance is less than three handbreadths it is considered to be closed, and no further measures are necessary. one may carry throughout it; it does not require either a pole or a beam. [This leniency is granted because] an opening less than three handbreadths wide is considered to be an extension of the existing wall.³²I.e., based on the principle of l'vud, the lane is considered to be a closed space and not open (Kessef Mishneh). Although there are more lenient opinions, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:28) accepts the Rambam's ruling.

When a beam is erected over a lane to make it possible for people to carry within as in a private domain, [the lane is not considered to be a private domain, and] a person who throws an article from it to the public domain or from the public domain into it is not liable. The beam is [there merely] to create a distinction.³³As mentioned in the notes on the first halachah of this chapter, the Rambam differs with many of the other Rishonim and maintains that, according to Torah law, an area enclosed by three partitions is a makom patur and not a private domain. Therefore, a person who transfers an article to it from the public domain or vice versa is not liable.

As mentioned in several places throughout the first chapter of the tractate of Eruvin, there is a difference of opinion among the Sages regarding why one is permitted to carry within a lane when a beam is erected over its fourth side. The opinion quoted by the Rambam maintains that although the Sages forbade carrying in such a domain, their prohibition is lifted because the beam serves as a distinction, setting this lane apart, physically and conceptually, from the public domain.

The other opinion maintains that the beam is considered to be a wall (i.e., it is considered as if there were a wall descending from the beam downward enclosing the lane). Hence, the lane is considered to be enclosed on all four sides and therefore, as a private domain.

When, by contrast, a pole is erected [to make it possible for people to carry], [the lane is a private domain, and] a person who throws an article from it to the public domain or from the public domain into it, is liable. The pole is considered to be a wall on the fourth side.³⁴In the first chapter of the tractate of Eruvin, our Sages also differ regarding why permission is granted to carry in a lane when a pole is erected at its fourth side. According to the opinion quoted by the Rambam, it is considered as if a wall emerges from the pole, and thus the lane is considered to be enclosed by a wall on all of its sides.

There is, however, another opinion, which states that the pole is erected merely to create a distinction and it is not considered to be a wall.

10. How is it possible to [make it permissible for people to carry] between two walls of the public domain through which people [frequently] pass? One makes gates on both sides,³⁵Some of the authorities who maintain that an enclosure with three walls is considered to be a private domain according to Torah law, permit carrying within a public domain if gates are erected on one side and a frame of an entrance, pole, or beam is erected on the other. (See the Mishnah Berurah 364:6.) causing the space between them to be considered to be a private domain.³⁶The definition of a public domain is taken from the encampment of the Jewish people in the desert, and there the public domain did not have gates (Mishnah Berurah 364:7). The gates enclose the domain on all four sides. Hence, even though many people walk through it, it is still considered as "private."

[In practice,] the gates need not be locked at night, but they must be fit to lock.³⁷Based on Eruvin 6a-b, many Rishonim differ with the Rambam on this point and maintain that not only must the gates be fit to be closed at night, they must actually be closed, in order for carrying to be permitted in a public domain. Gates that can be closed, but are not actually closed, are effective only in an open lane. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 364:2) mentions the Rambam's view, the more stringent opinion is favored.

It must be emphasized that from Chapter 14, Halachah 1, and Hilchot Eruvin 1:1, it appears that the Rambam also requires doors that are actually closed. Several explanations are offered by the commentaries in resolution of this difficulty. If they are sunken in the earth, [the earth must be] cleared away and [the gates] adjusted so that they can be locked. The frame of an entrance,³⁸Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 364:4, which states that a frame of an entrance is considered to be a wall. Therefore, if one erected poles on each corner of a square and connected them with a string above, one creates a private domain. Nevertheless, the Rabbis forbade carrying within an area fit to be considered a public domain unless it has a proper gate at its entrance. The Rambam, however, could not accept this ruling, because as stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 16, if the open portions of a barrier exceed the enclosed portions, it is not acceptable. a pole, or a beam are not sufficient to make it possible for people to carry within a public domain.³⁹Herein lies one of the points of controversy regarding the eruvim that are constructed around communities today. For few modern cities or villages are enclosed by actual walls with gates, and in practice, most of these eruvim employ a frame of an entrance, using telephone wires and the like.

As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 1, and its notes, the Rambam does not subscribe to the opinion that a public domain must contain 600,000 people passing through it. Although the later Ashkenazic authorities accept this more lenient view, they also suggest that those who are careful in their observance accept the Rambam's ruling.

Whether this principle is to be applied with regard to great metropolises like Manhattan, Brooklyn, London, and the like which have more than 600,000 passersby or with regard to smaller communities which are considered a public domain only according to the more stringent view, the public domain must be enclosed by proper walls. The use of a frame of an entrance employing telephone or electric wires and the like is not sufficient.

11. It is permissible to carry in [the portion of] the lane that is under the beam or opposite the pole.⁴⁰Although the inner portion of the beam or the pole is of most importance, it is, nevertheless, permitted to carry under the beam or opposite the pole, because that area is considered to be a makom patur (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 365:6). When does the above apply? When these structures are constructed near a public domain.

When, by contrast, [a lane is] near a carmelit, it is forbidden to carry in [the portion of] the lane that is under the beam or opposite the pole,⁴¹The Rambam's ruling is based on Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of Eruvin 8b,9a. The Ra'avad and most Ashkenazic authorities (among them Tosafot and Rabbenu Asher) interpret that passage differently and maintain that we are permitted to carry beneath a beam when it opens up to a carmelit.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 365:4) follows the Rambam's ruling. The Mishnah Berurah 365:27, however, mentions the more lenient views. Furthermore, many authorities (e.g., Maggid Mishnah, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 365:6) agree that if a beam is four handbreadths wide and is strong enough to support a roof, it is permitted to carry beneath it. In that instance, the outer end of the beam is considered to descend and serve as a fourth wall. unless one erects another pole to permit carrying within the entrance.⁴²In that instance, the area between the poles is considered to be a distinct entity, with walls on either side.

[The rationale for this stringency is that according to the Torah, a carmelit is a makom patur. Therefore, when] this entity, [the space opposite the pole or under the beam, which is also a makom patur, is adjacent] to an entity of this type, [the carmelit,] its presence is deemed significant [and it is considered to be an extension of the carmelit].⁴³Generally, one is allowed to carry within a makom patur. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade carrying in a carmelit, a makom patur which resembles a public domain. In the situation at hand, since one makom patur (the carmelit) is adjacent to another makom patur (the area opposite the pole or beneath the beam), the two are combined and form a single entity. Therefore, carrying is forbidden, not only in the carmelit, but also between the poles.

12. A pole may be constructed employing any substance, even a living entity,⁴⁴The Maggid Mishneh states that an animal used as a pole must be bound and may not be free to move. This concept can be derived from Chapter 16, Halachah 21, which states that an animal used for a partition may be bound. As mentioned in Halachah 9, a pole is considered to be a partition. or even an object from which we are forbidden to benefit. [For example, if] a false deity or a tree that is worshiped⁴⁵See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10-15 and 8:3 with regard to the different laws pertaining to an asherah, a tree that is worshiped. is employed as a pole, it is acceptable.⁴⁶The leniency mentioned represents a novel concept, for seemingly it applies even when the pole is associated with the idol worship of a Jew. (A pole worshiped by gentiles can be used if the gentiles nullfiy its connection with idol worship before it comes into the possession of a Jew. If, however, it is owned by a Jew, the connection with idol worship can never be nullified.)

Generally, since we are obligated to destroy objects that are associated with idol worship, from a halachic perspective, they are considered as if they have already been burnt to ashes. For example, Hilchot Shofar 1:3 states that it is forbidden to use a shofar belonging to an עיר הנדחת ("an apostate city") and Hilchot Lulav 8:1 states that a palm branch used for idol worship is unacceptable for use as a lulav. Since both a shofar and lulav have a minimum requirement for their length, an object that must be destroyed because of its connection with idol worship is unacceptable.

In the case at hand, however, since there is no minimum requirement for the width or breadth of a pole, there is no difficulty in using a tree that has been worshiped.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's explanation, for although there is no minimum width or breadth required for a pole, there is a minimum requirement for its height. Since the wood of the tree that has been worshiped is considered as though it had been burned to ash already, it lacks this minimum height.

(The Ra'avad, therefore, differs with the Rambam and maintains that a pole, like a beam, is merely a distinction. Therefore, no minimum height is required.)

Many of the other Rishonim differ with the Ra'avad and accept the Rambam's decision. The Maggid Mishneh differentiates between a shofar and a lulav - which must have three coordinates: width, breadth, and height - and a beam, which requires only one: height. The fundamental point of his explanation is that although such a beam is considered to lack dimensions, it exists and in this instance all that is necessary is its existence. See the notes of Rav Chayim Soloveichik to this halachah.

Tosafot (Eruvin 80b) offers a different explanation, stating that even if the tree was burned, one could stick its ashes together and obtain a pole ten handbreadths high. [The rationale for this ruling is that] there is no minimum requirement regarding the width of a pole.

The height of the pole may not be less than ten handbreadths.⁴⁷In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:6), the Rambam explains that this height is required for a pole, because the minimum height of a lane is ten handbreadths. Thus, the pole would extend for the entire height of the lane. Even if the lane is higher, the pole is not required to be more than ten handbreadths high. There is not, however, a minimum requirement for its width and breadth.

13. A beam may be constructed employing any substance, with the exception of a tree that has been worshiped.⁴⁸Based on Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:9, it can be inferred that this refers to a tree that was worshiped by a Jew or a tree that was worshiped by a gentile, but which was cut down before the gentile nullified its connection with idol worship. [The latter restriction is applied] because there is a minimum measure for the width of a beam, and a tree that has been worshiped is forbidden to be used whenever there is a minimum measure specified.

The width of a beam may be no less than a handbreadth;⁴⁹Even though the beam must be sturdy enough to support a brick that is one and a half handbreadths wide, it is possible for there to be a portion of the brick extending on either side of the beam (Eruvin 14a, Kessef Mishneh). there is, however, no minimum measure for its thickness. Nevertheless, it must be sturdy enough⁵⁰When a beam is built in such a sturdy fashion, it is obviously placed there as a permanent part of the lane, and thus will serve as a distinction for the people inside of it. to hold a brick⁵¹Based on the Jerusalem Talmud, the Maggid Mishneh states that it is not enough for the beam to support a single brick. It must be sturdy enough to support an entire row of bricks of this size. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:17) quotes the Rambam's wording, the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:19, Mishnah Berurah 363:59) quote the Maggid Mishneh's view.

Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:18) also quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Asher that if the beam is more than four handbreadths wide, it does not have to be sturdy enough to hold a brick. that is one and a half handbreadths by three handbreadths.⁵²Literally "half of three handbreadths by three handbreadths." The supports⁵³I.e., the supports that are attached to the walls on which the beam is placed. for the beam must be sturdy enough to hold the beam and a brick of the size mentioned above.⁵⁴Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that the supports need not be that sturdy. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:18) quotes both opinions without coming to a final decision. Similarly, there is a difference of opinion among the later authorities concerning this issue.

14. Of what size may the entrance of a lane be for a pole or a beam to be sufficient to allow [people to carry within]? Its height may not be less than ten handbreadths,⁵⁵If the walls of the lane are not ten handbreadths high, they are not significant and it is considered as if the lane lacks enclosures on either side. nor more than twenty cubits.⁵⁶The Maggid Mishneh states that this restriction applies only when a beam is being used, for the passersby will not notice a beam that is more than twenty cubits high. If, however, a pole is used, there is no limitation on the height of the lane. This interpretation is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26). Its width may not be more than ten cubits.⁵⁷As mentioned in Chapter 16, Halachah 16, an opening that is larger than ten cubits is too large to be considered to be an entrance.

[The above applies] when [the opening] is not built with a frame of an entrance.⁵⁸I.e., the entrance to the lane is an open space without a doorway or gate. If, however, [the opening] is built with the frame of an entrance, even if it is 100 cubits high, less than ten [handbreadths high],⁵⁹The Ra'avad and others object to this ruling, stating that if the walls of a lane are not ten handbreadths high, the fact that the opening is constructed in the form of a frame of an entrance is of no significance. Since the walls of the lane are not high enough to be considered significant entities, of what value is the fact that the opening is constructed in the form of a frame of an entrance?

The Meiri explains that since the frame of the entrance is at least ten handbreadths high, the fact that the walls of the lane themselves are lower is insignificant. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's opinion. Note the explanation of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:27, which explains that this applies in a situation when the walls of the lane are not ten handbreadths high. Nevertheless, the lane is considered a private domain because of the walls of houses and courtyards that adjoin it.

See also the Mishnah Berurah 363:93, which mentions that many later authorities accept the Ra'avad's objection and allow people to carry in such a lane only when the walls are ten handbreadths high. These authorities, however, explain that if the walls of the lane are ten handbreadths throughout the lane, with the exception of its opening, the construction of a frame of an entrance at the opening makes it permissible for people to carry within. or more than 100 cubits wide, it is permissible [to carry within].⁶⁰When the frame of an entrance is constructed, there is no need for a post or a beam. For the construction of a frame of an entrance causes an entrance to be considered as if it were enclosed, as stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 16.

15. Similarly, if the beam over a lane is ornamented or it has designs⁶¹From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:1), it is clear that he is speaking about designs and ornaments on the beam itself. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 363:26, based on Rabbenu Asher's interpretation of Eruvin 3a), states that it is sufficient for there to be designs on the wall next to the beam. For when people look at the designs, their attention will also be drawn to the beam. so that everyone looks at it, it is acceptable even if it is more than 20 cubits high.⁶²Note the Kessef Mishneh's statements that permission is not granted to carry in a lane that is more than ten handbreadths wide, despite the fact that the beam placed above it has designs. A beam serves as a distinguishing factor. Therefore, [generally,] if it is higher than 20 cubits, [it is not acceptable because] it will not be noticed.⁶³The principle that objects above 20 cubits high will not be noticed easily by the human eye is also applied with reference to a sukkah (the s'chach may not be more than 20 cubits high) and with regard to a Chanukah candelabra (which may not be placed 20 cubits above the ground). If, however, it is ornamented or if it has designs - since it attracts attention, it serves as a distinguishing factor.

16. When the height of a lane, from the earth until the bottom of the beam is 20 cubits, it is acceptable even though the width of the beam extends higher than 20 [cubits above the ground.]

If the lane is more than 20 cubits high and one desires to reduce its height by placing a beam lower than it,⁶⁴We have translated the Rambam's words in the most simple fashion, following Rav Kapach's interpretation. The Maggid Mishneh (based on Eruvin 4b) offers a much more complicated interpretation, explaining that if originally a beam was erected more than 20 cubits above the ground and then a second beam was erected above the floor to reduce its height, there may not be more than 20 cubits between the first beam and the second. This approach is also followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:26).

the beam must be a handbreadth wide. If the lane is less than ten handbreadths high, one should dig out a portion that is four cubits by four cubits⁶⁵Rashi (Eruvin 5a) explains that a smaller area is not sufficient. A lane is not considered significant unless it is more than four cubits by four cubits, as explained in Halachah 7. Thus, there must be a portion of the lane with walls that are ten handbreadths high, with at least this area. in area, deep enough so that [the walls of the lane will be] a full ten handbreadths [in height].

17. [The following rules apply when] an opening is made in the side of a lane,⁶⁶Leading to a public domain or a carmelit (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 365:1). near its front:⁶⁷I.e., the opening is made in the side wall of the lane. Nevertheless, it is very close to the opening of the lane where the pole or the beam erected to permit carrying was placed. If a portion of the wall four handbreadths wide touching the front [wall] remains standing, it is permissible [to carry within the lane],⁶⁸Although generally the walls of a lane must be four cubits long, as mentioned in Halachah 7, leniency is allowed in this instance, since the lane existed previously (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.; Mishnah Berurah 365:2). provided the opening is not more than ten cubits wide.⁶⁹As mentioned in Chapter 16, Halachah 16, an opening that is larger than ten cubits causes the entire side to be considered to be unenclosed, unless a frame of an entrance is constructed above it.

If, however, a portion of the wall four handbreadths wide does not remain, it is forbidden [to carry within the lane]⁷⁰Although the opening is not too large to nullify the enclosure, since the people will be going in and out through the new opening, they will not notice the beam or the pole erected at the original entrance (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, loc. cit.). unless the opening is less than three handbreadths. [Any opening] less than three handbreadths [is considered to be closed,] based on the principle of l'vud.

18. [The following rules apply when] a lane opens up entirely⁷¹When the walls of the lane open to the courtyard and there is an opening to the public domain on the opposite side, it appears as if the lane leads directly into the public domain. If, however, there are projections remaining at the side of the entrance from the lane to the courtyard, they are considered to be equivalent to a pole, and it is permitted to carry within the lane. (See Mishnah Berurah 365:12- 13.) to a courtyard and the courtyard opens up on the opposite side⁷²See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 365:3), which states that the question of whether the opening to the public domain must be directly opposite the opening to the lane for the restriction to apply depends on whether or not an eruv has been made between the inhabitants of the lane and the inhabitants of the courtyard. See the notes to Halachah 1. to the public domain: it is forbidden [to carry within], because it is like an open lane. It is [however] permissible to carry within the courtyard, for although many people pass through a courtyard - entering from this side and departing from the other - it is still considered a private domain.⁷³This clarifies the definition of "private domain" given at the beginning of Chapter 14 - i.e., private property belonging to a single individual, a group, or a collective.

19. [The following rules apply when] there are several paths leading [from the public domain] to a lane, [merging with it] at different points.⁷⁴Eruvin 8b describes this situation as "a lane structured like a centipede" - i.e., that has different paths leading into it like the legs of a centipede. The Maggid Mishneh depicts this as follows.

There is, however, some difficulty with his interpretation, because the Rambam specifically states, "Although the openings are not opposite one another." Accordingly, Rav Kapach has drawn the following diagram.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 364:5) mentions both possibilities, stating that they are both governed by the same laws. As will be mentioned, its rulings are based on a different perspective than that of the Rambam.

Although the entrances are not opposite one another, since they all lead to the public domain, every one is considered to be an open lane.⁷⁵See Halachah 3 with regard to an L-shaped lane.

What must be done [to make it possible to carry within this lane]? A frame of an entrance should be constructed for each of the paths at one end.⁷⁶The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as requiring the frame of an entrance to be constructed at the entrance from the path to the public domain on one side. On the other side of the path, at the entrances that lead to the public domain, a pole or a beam is sufficient.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) differs and maintains that the frame of an entrance should be made at the entrance of the path to the main lane. At the entrance to the public domain, a pole or a beam is sufficient. The difference between these rulings depends on their rulings regarding an L-shaped lane, as mentioned in the notes on Halachah 3. Similarly, [a frame of an entrance should be constructed] at the main entrance [of the lane to the public domain]. At the other side of all the paths, one should construct a pole or a beam.

20. When one of the walls of a lane [that leads to the public domain] is

long and the other is short,⁷⁷At one side of the lane the wall protrudes further than the other, so that the opening to the lane is a diagonal. one should place the beam near the shorter wall.⁷⁸Placing the beam at a diagonal is not acceptable, because a beam is intended to create a distinction between the lane and the public domain. When the beam is positioned at a diagonal, a person carrying in the extension of the lane will not differentiate between it and the public domain.

The Rashba (quoted in the Maggid Mishneh) states that one may carry in the extended portion of the lane only by erecting the frame of an entrance across the diagonal. This ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:30). If, however, one erects a pole at both sides of the entrance to the lane, it is not acceptable. One may, however, carry in the area behind the inner pole (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:36; Mishnah Berurah 363:125).

When a pole⁷⁹The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as saying that the same laws apply if one erected a beam over the midst of a lane. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:32). is constructed in the midst of a lane, it is permissible to carry within the inner portion of the lane⁸⁰Eruvin 14b explains that this law is seemingly self-evident. Nevertheless, it was necessary to mention it, for one might think that carrying would be forbidden within the inner half lest one carry in the outer half. that is behind the pole.⁸¹The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) emphasize that the inner portion must meet all the criteria for a lane mentioned in Halachah 7. It is, however, forbidden [to carry] in the outer portion of the lane that is beyond the pole.

21. When a lane is twenty cubits wide, [it is possible to enable people to carry within by erecting a pole or a board in the following manner]:⁸²As mentioned in Halachah 14, it is possible to enable people to carry within a lane by erecting a beam or a pole only when the opening to a lane is ten cubits or less wide. If the opening is wider, a frame of an entrance is necessary. One may build a wall ten handbreadths high and four cubits long - the latter being the minimum length of a lane - and place [the wall perpendicularly] in the middle [of the entrance].

[As such,] it is as if there are two lanes, each with an entrance of ten cubits.⁸³The fact that the two lanes merge is not significant, for it is the width at the entrance that is the determining factor. In this instance as well, the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:33) follow the rationale mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah and emphasize that both the new lanes created by the erection of the wall must meet all the conditions for a lane mentioned in Halachah 7.

Alternatively, one may leave a space of two cubits from [one side of the lane] and set up a wall three cubits long, and [similarly,] leave a space of two cubits [from the other side of the lane] and set up a wall three cubits long. Thus, the opening of the lane will be ten cubits wide,⁸⁴The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:34) states that the measures cited by the Rambam are not arbitrary figures. As long as the walls erected exceed the size of the empty space between them and the wall, and the opening is ten cubits wide or less, it is possible to allow people to carry within the lane by erecting a pole or a beam.

Eruvin 10a mentions that generally as long as the enclosed portion of a side is equal to the open portion, it is acceptable. (See Chapter 16, Halachah 16.) In this instance, however, since a majority of the side is left open for the entrance, the enclosed portion of the remainder must exceed the open portion. and the sides will be considered to be closed, because the enclosed portions exceed the open portions.⁸⁵The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) underscores that the leniency mentioned in this halachah applies only when people do not enter and leave through the spaces on the sides. It is, nevertheless, unlikely that they would do so unless there is a clear indication that this is the common practice (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:40; Mishnah Berurah 363:148). See Halachah 17.

22. A pole that projects outward from the wall of the lane is acceptable.⁸⁶Based on Eruvin 5 a-b, the Maggid Mishneh interprets this as referring to a portion of the wall that projects into the lane, but which was not constructed for the purpose of serving as a pole. It is, nevertheless, acceptable.

The Maggid Mishneh also mentions other opinions that interpret the above Talmudic portion as referring to a projection that is less than four cubits wide. If the width of the projection exceeds four cubits, the projection is considered to be a wall. If the width of the entire side exceeds eight cubits, another pole is required. This opinion is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:12). [Similarly,] a pole that is standing [at the side of the entrance to a lane] without having been placed there [intentionally]⁸⁷E.g., a tree that is growing at the side of the lane. is acceptable, provided one has the intent of relying on it before [the commencement of] the Sabbath.⁸⁸The Maggid Mishneh interprets Eruvin 15a, the source for this halachah, as referring to a situation where a tree was growing near a pole at the side of the lane, and the pole was removed. If it was removed before the Sabbath, we can assume that the people relied on the tree to use as a pole. Hence, it is acceptable. If, however, the pole was removed on the Sabbath itself, the tree is not acceptable, for there was no intent to use it for this purpose before the commencement of the Sabbath. This conception is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:11).

When a pole can be seen from the inside of a lane but cannot be seen from the outside,⁸⁹This diagram, taken from the Maggid Mishneh, is also repeated in Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:11 and the Mishneh Berurah 363:31. See the accompanying diagram. In this way, the projection is seen only by those standing within the lane and not by those standing outside. or conversely, when it can be seen from the outside, but from within the lane appears flush with the wall, it is acceptable as a pole.⁹⁰This is a matter of controversy among the commentaries. Rashi, Eruvin 9b, interprets this as a direct opposite of the above diagram. Tosafot objects, and reverses the interpretation of the terms.

A pole that is lifted three handbreadths above the ground⁹¹The Mishnah Berurah 363:35 explains that even when the pole is ten handbreadths high, it is not acceptable if it is more than three handbreadths above the ground. The rationale for this ruling is that a pole is considered like a wall, and a wall must reach within three handbreadths of the ground. or that is more than three handbreadths away from the wall,⁹²Note the Mishnah Berurah 363:22, which states that this restriction applies regardless of the size of the pole. is not at all significant. Anything less than three handbreadths is, however, acceptable, based on the principle of l'vud.

When a pole is very wide - whether its width is less than or equal to half the width of the lane, it is acceptable and is considered to be a pole. If, however, [its width] exceeds half the width of the lane, [it is considered to be a wall and this side is considered to be enclosed], because the enclosed portion exceeds the open portion.⁹³As mentioned in the notes on the beginning of the halachah, the Rambam's ruling is not accepted by all the authorities.

23. When a mat is spread over a beam, the beam's [function in making it possible to carry within the lane] is nullified, for it is no longer conspicuous.⁹⁴As mentioned in Halachah 9, a beam that is placed over the entrance of a lane differentiates between the lane and the public domain. When, however, this beam is covered by a mat, it appears that it was placed there to hang objects on it and thus no longer serves its original function. [It is possible, however, for it still to be possible to carry within the lane, provided the mat reaches within three handbreadths of the ground.⁹⁵Although the beam is no longer considered significant for its original purpose. If the mat reaches the ground - or because of the principle of l'vud, within three handbreadths of the ground - it is considered to be a wall, provided it is tied so that it will not be moved by the wind. (See Chapter 16, Halachah 24.)] If the mat is three handbreadths or more from the ground, it is not considered to be a wall [and carrying is forbidden within the lane].

If one implants two spikes into the front of the wall⁹⁶The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:25) mentions that these spikes are implanted at an angle, inclined toward the inside of the lane. Thus, there are two difficulties with the beam:

a) It is placed on the spikes and not on the walls of the lane itself,

b) Its span is shorter than the width of the lane itself.

From the diagram drawn by the Maggid Mishneh to depict the Rambam's conception, it would appear that there is a difference of opinion and the difficulty is that the spikes and the beam are outside the lane. of a lane and places a beam upon them, one's actions are of no significance [and it is forbidden to carry within the lane]. For a beam [to be significant, it] must be positioned over a lane and not next to it.⁹⁷The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions that if the pole is within three handbreadths of the wall of the lane, it is acceptable, based on the principle of l'vud.

24. [The following rules apply when] a beam extends outward from one wall of a lane,⁹⁸The Maggid Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:23, and the Mishnah Berurah 363:67 explain that even if the beam does not reach either wall (e.g., it is placed atop a pillar, in the midst of the lane), it is acceptable as long as it is within three handbreadths of both walls. but does not reach the second wall, or if one beam extends outward from one wall and another beam extends outward from the second wall: If they reach within three [handbreadths] of each other, there is no need to bring another beam.⁹⁹For they are considered as though they are connected, based on the principle of l'vud. If there is more than three handbreadths between them, one must bring another beam.

25. Similarly, when two beams are positioned parallel to each other and neither of them is able to support a brick [of the required size],¹⁰⁰See Halachah 13. there is no need to bring another beam if the two beams can support the brick together.¹⁰¹Based on Eruvin 14a, the Ra'avad explains that the beams must be close enough to each other actually to support the brick if placed there. The Rambam (see the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh) explains that as long as the beams are within three handbreadths of each other, and their combined width is a handbreadth, theoretically, they would be strong enough to support a brick placed upon them. Hence, it is sufficient even though in their present position, the beams are unable to support a brick.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 363:22) mentions both interpretations, but appears to favor that of the Rambam. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 363:24, which states that one should be stringent and follow the Ra'avad's view.

If one is on a higher plane and the other is on a lower plane, we see the upper one as if it were lower and the lower one as if it were raised [and thus the two are regarded as though they were on the same plane].¹⁰²This is based on the principle of chavot rami, literally, "cast it down." We find this principle also applied in Hilchot Sukkah 5:21 and Hilchot Tum'at Meit 16:6.

The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh, however, both note the apparent differences between the Rambam's citation of this principle here and in Hilchot Sukkah, where the Rambam states:

If the s'chach was uneven - i.e., some of it high and some of it low, it is kosher, provided there is less than three handbreadths between the [height of the] upper and lower [portions of the s'chach].

If the upper portion [of the s'chach] is a handbreadth or more wide, even though it is more than three handbreadths above [the lower portion], we consider it to be descending and touching the edge of the lower portion.

Since as mentioned in the previous notes, it is only the combined width of the beams which is a handbreadth, and each beam is smaller, the Maggid Mishneh asks why the principle of chavut rami applies. Seemingly, it would be necessary for the upper beam to be a handbreadth wide as well. [This applies] provided the upper board is not higher than 20 cubits high,¹⁰³The maximum acceptable height for a beam (Halachah 14). the lower board is not less than ten handbreadths high¹⁰⁴The minimum acceptable height for a beam (ibid.). and there would be less than three handbreadths between the two if the upper one were lowered and the lower one were raised until they were parallel to each other on the same plane.¹⁰⁵As explained in the opening clause of this halachah. With regard to this clause as well, the objection raised by the Ra'avad with regard to the first clause is also relevant. Indeed, it is far more applicable in this instance, for when the boards are not on the same plane, it is impossible for them to hold a brick.

As in the first clause, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:23) quotes both opinions, but appears to favor the Rambam's view. In this instance, however, most of the later authorities suggest accepting the stringency suggested by the Ra'avad.

26. If the beam is crooked, we consider it as if it were straight. If it is rounded,¹⁰⁶The Mishnah Berurah 363:63 explains that this law involves a further leniency: Since the beam is rounded, it will not be able to support a brick. Nevertheless, since it would be strong enough to accept a brick if it were straight, it is acceptable. we consider it as if it were linear. Thus, if its circumference is three handbreadths, it is a handbreadth in diameter.¹⁰⁷The Rambam's words are a direct quote from the Mishnah (Eruvin 1:5). In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam notes that the relation mentioned here is merely an approximation, and the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is pi.

[The following rules apply when] a beam is located in the midst of a lane, but because it is crooked, a portion projects outside the lane, or because it is crooked, a portion projects above twenty [cubits] or below ten [handbreadths] high: We consider the distance that would remain between the two ends of the beam were the crooked portion [which projects outside the desired area] to be removed:¹⁰⁸I.e., the portion of the beam that extends beyond its place is considered as if it did not exist, and we calculate the distance - on a straight line - between the two points of the beam on the extremity of the permitted area. If that distance is less than three handbreadths, it is acceptable, because of the principle of l'vud. If not, a new beam is required. If less than three handbreadths remain, there is no need to bring another beam. If [more remain], another beam is required.

27. When eight walls are positioned at the corners [of a square around] a well,¹⁰⁹Wells are generally ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths by four handbreadths wide, thus constituting a private domain. Accordingly, if the area around them is not enclosed, it is forbidden to draw water and drink, since by doing so one will be removing an article from a private domain to a carmelit or to a public domain.

As mentioned in Halachah 30, our Sages granted the leniency mentioned in this halachah as a specific dispensation to the pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem for the festivals. Rather than require the well to be surrounded by a proper wall, they allowed the use of such a structure. two attached [perpendicularly] at each corner, they are considered to be an enclosure. Even though [the length of the] open portion exceeds that of the walls on each of the sides, since [there are walls] standing at all of the corners, it is permitted to draw water from the well and permit an animal to drink.¹¹⁰See Figure A. Note the Mishnah, Eruvin 2:1, which uses the term d'yomdin, which literally means "two pillars" to describe the structure positioned at each of the corners of the square.

How high must each of these walls be? Ten handbreadths. The walls must each be six handbreadths wide,¹¹¹This is the minimum length of the walls placed at each side of the corner. Although a wall of four handbreadths is considered significant in many instances, in the case at hand a larger measure is required, because the majority of the enclosure remains open. and there must be space between each wall for two teams - each consisting of four cattle - one entering and one departing. This measure is not more than thirteen and one third cubits.¹¹²This is the maximum size of the space allowed between walls. As obvious from Halachah 29, it may be smaller.

28. [It is not always necessary for this space to have actual walls positioned at its corners]. If at one of the corners, or at all four of the corners, there is positioned a large stone, a tree, a mound whose incline is more than ten handbreadths within four cubits, or a bundle of reeds, [the following rules apply]: We see whether the article in question has a section one cubit long on either side that is ten handbreadths high when divided [at the corner].¹¹³See Figure B. [If this is true,] it is considered to be two walls positioned at a corner.

When five reeds are erected [around the corner of such a square] with less than three [handbreadths] between each pair of them,¹¹⁴See Figure C. [the space between them is considered to be closed].¹¹⁵Based on the principle of l'vud. If there are six handbreadths on one side and six handbreadths on the other side, they are considered to be two walls positioned at a corner.

29. It is permissible to bring these four corners closer to the well, provided there is still enough space for the majority of a cow's body to be within these walls when it is drinking.¹¹⁶If the enclosure was any smaller, it is likely that an animal may turn and its owner would carry the bucket out of the enclosure. Eruvin 19a states that this distance is two cubits in length on each side. Although one does not hold the head of the animal together with the vessel from which it is drinking, since there is space for the head [of a cow] and the majority [of its body] within [the square], it is permitted.

[If the square is this size,] it is permissible even for a camel¹¹⁷A camel is much larger than a cow and its head and the majority of its body cannot fit into the space for the head and the majority of the body of a cow. [to use] it. If [the square] is smaller, it is forbidden to draw water within [the square], even for a kid whose entire body can enter within.

It is permissible to separate [the walls] from the well as far as one desires, provided that one adds straight walls on every side,¹¹⁸I.e., the further the distance from the well, the larger the distance between the corners becomes. Rather than make the corner walls larger, it is proper to add a third (or more) wall to each side, to maintain the distance between each wall at thirteen and one third cubits or less (Eruvin 18a). See the accompanying diagram. so that there will never be more than thirteen and one third cubits between each of the two walls.

30. [The use of] such walls was permitted only in Eretz Yisrael, and for the sake of the herds¹¹⁹As the halachah mentions below, this leniency was generally allowed for animals; only when the well was very wide were men also allowed to benefit from it. of the festive pilgrims. Similarly, [this leniency] was granted only with regard to a fresh-water well¹²⁰I.e., a well - which is itself a source of water - but not a reservoir or cistern in which water was stored. See the following halachah. that belongs to the public.¹²¹I.e., in contrast to one belonging to a private individual. See the following halachah..

In contrast, should a person desire to drink, he should descend to the well and drink, or should make a barrier ten handbreadths high around the wall,¹²²This distinguishes the area as a private domain. In regard to descending to drink from the well see Chapter 24, Halachah 4. stand within it, draw water, and drink. If the well is very wide and a man is unable to climb down it, he may draw water and drink within [a structure of] corner walls [as described above].

31. Similarly, it is forbidden to draw water from a cistern that belongs to the public or from a well that belongs to a private individual - even in Eretz Yisrael - unless one constructs a barrier¹²³This interpretation of the Hebrew חגורה follows the commentary of Tosafot, rather than Rashi (Eruvin 22b). ten handbreadths high around them.

32. When a person was drawing [water] for his animal that is standing between the walls [of the abovementioned enclosure], he may draw water and place it before [the animal] in the vessel [with which it was drawn].

If the [animal was in] a stall ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths [by four handbreadths] wide, whose front portion projected within such walls, the person should not draw water and place [the vessel] before [the animal].¹²⁴Although there is no transgression in performing such an activity, since the stall projects within the enclosure, our Sages forbade this for the reasons stated by the Rambam. [This restriction was instituted] lest the stall be broken and the person carry the bucket into the stall, and from the stall [bring it] to the ground of the public domain.¹²⁵The Rambam's ststements are based on Eruvin 20b, which explains that while attempting to fix the broken stall, the person may carry the bucket to the public domain. Nevertheless, as the Merkevet HaMishneh notes, the Rambam slightly changes the description of the situation mentioned in the Talmud to allow for a shorter, more concise text. Instead, he should draw water, pour it before [his animal], who will drink it itself.

33. When a person throws [an article] from the public domain into [a space surrounded by] walls of this nature, he is liable. Since there is an actual wall that is ten [handbreadths] high and more than four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] in area in every corner, the square is a definitive and distinct entity.¹²⁶Note the Avnei Nezer (Orach Chayim, Responsum 265), who question how large an area may be included with such walls for the area to be considered a private domain according to the Torah. From the Rambam's statements, it appears that even if there are more than thirteen and one third handbreadths between the walls, it is still considered a private domain. Hence, the entire [enclosure] is considered to be a private domain.¹²⁷Thus, the restrictions against drawing water from such a well mentioned in Halachah 30 and 31 are Rabbinic in origin. When our Sages instituted these restrictions, they considered the difficulties that might be caused to the festive pilgrims and did not impose them in regard to their animals.

[The above applies] even [were such a structure to be built] in a valley where there is no well, for there is a wall on each side of each corner [of the enclosure]. Even if many people pass through the enclosure, the walls are not considered to have been nullified.¹²⁸Eruvin 22a explains that even if a public thoroughfare passes through such a structure, it is still considered to be a private domain, because it has the abovementioned walls. Note the statements of the Baal HaHashlamah, who differs with the Rambam's ruling.[Instead, the enclosure] is considered to be like a courtyard through which many people pass. [All agree that] a person who throws [an object] into [such a courtyard] is liable.¹²⁹See Halachah 18.If there is a well located within such an enclosure, [our Sages relaxed some of their restrictions and] permitted drawing water for an animal.

34. When one end of a courtyard enters between the walls of the abovementioned enclosure, it is permitted to carry from [the courtyard] into the enclosure and from the enclosure into [the courtyard].¹³⁰For it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another. Since there are no people dwelling in the enclosure, an eruv is not required (Rashi, Eruvin 20a). When [portions of] two courtyards enter between the walls of the abovementioned enclosure, it is forbidden to carry [from the enclosure to the courtyards and from the courtyard to the enclosure] unless an eruv is made.¹³¹Since people from two different courtyards are using the area, an eruv is required. Nevertheless, once an eruv is made, there is no difficulty in carrying from the courtyards to the enclosure. Although there is an opinion (Eruvin 20a) that forbids carrying in such a situation even when an eruv has been made, it is not accepted as halachah.

Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that the two courtyards must enter between the same walls of the enclosure and share a common divider. The eruv must be placed in an opening in this divider. If, however, the courtyards are on opposite sides of the enclosure, the eruv is not effective. Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that there is no indication of such a restriction in the Rambam's words.

If the well dries up on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry between the walls [of the enclosure].¹³²We do not say that since it was permitted to carry in the enclosure for a portion of the Sabbath, we are able to continue carrying within (Rashi, loc. cit.). [Our Sages¹³³According to the Torah itself, however, the enclosure is a private domain, as reflected in the previous halachah.] considered these walls to be an acceptable enclosure to allow [people] to carry within, only because of the water. If the well begins to flow with water on the Sabbath,¹³⁴From the Rambam's wording, it would appear that this leniency applies regardless of whether the well had dried up on the Sabbath or was dry even before the Sabbath commenced. If it begins to flow with water, one may carry within the enclosure. Note, however, Rashi (loc. cit.) and the Baal HaHashlamah, who maintain that the leniency applies only when originally there was water in the well at the commencement of the Sabbath. Since the walls of the enclosure were not considered to be an acceptable partition at the commencement of the Sabbath, they cannot become acceptable on that Sabbath. it is permitted to carry within [the enclosure], for an enclosure that is established on the Sabbath is an [acceptable] enclosure.¹³⁵See Chapter 16, Halachah 22.

When the beam or pole [used to permit people to carry within] a lane is removed on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to carry within,¹³⁶In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:3), the Rambam differentiates between this instance and others (e.g., Chapter 16, Halachah 13), where, since permission is granted to carry within an area at the commencement of the Sabbath, that permission is continued throughout the Sabbath. These leniencies are granted when the difficulties arise because of the restrictions involved in making an eruv.

A more stringent ruling is applied in this situation, because if the pole or beam is removed, it is as if the area is open entirely. The difficulty is not in the status of the people within the enclosure, but in the enclosure itself. It no longer fits the standards required by the Sages. even if it opens up to a carmelit.¹³⁷And there is thus no possibility of one of the Torah's prohibitions being violated. Nevertheless, carrying in such a lane is forbidden because of Rabbinic decree.

35. When an excedra¹³⁸A Greek architectural structure with three (and sometimes two) walls and a roof with an aperture for sunlight in the center. Often translated as "a porch." is constructed in an open area, it is permitted to carry within its entire space although it has only three walls and a roof.¹³⁹Generally, as reflected by his statements in Halachah 2, the Rambam prohibits carrying in a structure with only three walls unless an additional measure is taken - e.g., the construction of a pole or a beam. In this instance, as he explains, that function is served by the edge of the roof, which is considered to descend and form the fourth wall. (See Chapter 16, Halachah 7.) We consider it to be as though the edge of the roof descends and closes off the fourth side.¹⁴⁰Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 361:2), which states that this applies even when the opening is more than ten cubits wide. See also the Maggid Mishneh, who mentions that there are opinions that require a portion of the wall to remain at either corner for this principle to apply.

Note also the Ramah (Orach Chayim 361:2), who applies the principle, "the edge of the roof is considered to descend," even with regard to a structure of two walls, provided the walls are built as an L. A person who throws an article into it from the public domain is not liable.¹⁴¹The Ra'avad and others object to this ruling, for as mentioned in the notes on Halachot 2 and 9, they maintain that a structure with three walls is considered to be a private domain according to the Torah. It is as if one throws an article into a closed lane that possesses a roof.

When the corner of a house or a courtyard is broken and an opening of ten cubits is created, it is forbidden to carry within it at all. Although [generally] whenever an opening is ten cubits or less we consider it to be an entrance,¹⁴²See Chapter 16, Halachah 16. [no leniency is granted in this instance, because] an entrance is not made in a corner.¹⁴³See Chapter 16, Halachah 20.

Should there be a board extending across the length of the opening, it is considered as if it descends and closes the opening.¹⁴⁴I.e., were there to be a beam of the roof of the house extending over the portion that was open, we can apply the principle stated in the above portion of the halachah, "the edge of the roof is considered to descend," and on this basis allow one to carry within. Thus, it is permitted to carry within the entire area. [This leniency applies] provided [the beams] are not [constructed at] an angle.¹⁴⁵This clause - which significantly is lacking in some authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah - has created discussion among the commentaries. In his commentary on Eruvin 94a, Rashi explains that the word "angle" mentioned in the Talmud refers to roofs which, like most of the roofs in Europe, descend at a slant. When a roof is flat, the principle "the edge of the roof is considered to descend" applies. If the roof descends at an angle, the principle does not. This interpretation is quoted by Rav Yosef Karo, both in his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) as a different interpretation than that of the Rambam.

The Rambam's conception is clearly expressed in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 9:3), where he interprets the term "angle" to mean that the beams of the roof were built on a slant, as in the accompanying diagram. Since the beams do not end in the place where the opening was made - but were rather broken off abruptly - the principle "the edge of the roof is considered to descend" does not apply.

36. The term "fingerbreadth" when used as a measurement, universally refers to the width of a thumb.¹⁴⁶This measure is not particularly relevant with regard to the laws of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, it is mentioned here, because the measures of a handbreadth and a cubit, which are extremely relevant, are dependent on it. See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:9, which defines a fingerbreadth as the length of two barley corns. In modern measure, it is 2 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish. A handbreadth is the size of four fingerbreadths.¹⁴⁷Thus, 8 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah and 9.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish. Whenever the term "cubit" is used whether with regard to the laws of the Sabbath, a sukkah, or the prohibition of growing mixed species, it refers to a cubit of six handbreadths.¹⁴⁸Note Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:6, which explains that some of the cubits used for the altar's dimensions contained only five handbreadths.

There are times when we measure a cubit as six handbreadths pressed one to the other, and other occasions when we consider the handbreadths as amply spaced one from the other.¹⁴⁹I.e., when a more stringent approach would call for a larger measure, it is the larger measure that is required. When a more stringent approach would call for a smaller measure, it is the smaller measure that is required.

The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as stating that the difference between these two measurements is half a fingerbreadth. In both instances, the intent is that this lead to a more stringent ruling.

For example, the length of a lane [is required to be a minimum of] four cubits. These are measured in amply spaced cubits. The height [of a lane may not exceed] twenty cubits. These are measured in constricted cubits. Similarly, the length of an opening [may not exceed] ten cubits. These are measured in constricted cubits. Similar principles apply regarding the laws of a sukkah and the prohibition of growing mixed species.