Siman 345

Our Sages taught (Shabbat 6a): "There are four domains for Shabbat: a reshut hayachid, a reshut harabim, a karmelit, and a makom patur." And these are only the general categories, for in the details there are many more; that is to say—generally, there are two domains from the Torah that are distinct from one another, and they are the reshut hayachid and the reshut harabim, between which it is forbidden to carry or throw. And if one carried or threw—if intentionally, he is liable for stoning, and if unintentionally, he is liable for a chatat. And aside from these two domains, it is permitted to carry from them to a reshut hayachid or a reshut harabim, and from those into them. However, by rabbinic decree, there are two additional domains, and they are the karmelit and the makom patur; for from a karmelit it is forbidden to carry into a reshut hayachid or a reshut harabim, and likewise from them into it, but from a makom patur it is permitted. But in the details, there are cases where even in a complete reshut hayachid it is forbidden to carry more than four amot by rabbinic decree, and from it to a reshut hayachid is forbidden, and likewise from a reshut hayachid into it—such as a chatzer or a mavoi for which they did not make an eruv, and likewise a karpef larger than beit satayim that was not enclosed for habitation, and similar cases, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. (And this is the intent of Tosafot there, s.v. "Arba," see there).

What is a reshut hayachid? The Rambam wrote at the beginning of chapter 14: "Anything that is ten tefachim high and four tefachim by four tefachim wide or more than this, (meaning, a mound that is ten tefachim high with a width of four by four) and similarly a trench that is ten tefachim deep and four tefachim by four tefachim wide or more than this, and similarly a place that is surrounded by four partitions ten tefachim high and between them is four by four or more than this, even if it contains several miles—if it was surrounded for the purpose of a dwelling, such as a city surrounded by a wall whose gates are locked at night, and alleys that have three walls and a lechi on the fourth side, and similarly a courtyard and a pen and a fold that were surrounded for the purpose of a dwelling—all of them are complete reshut hayachid. Even vessels, such as a ship and a tower and a beehive and the like—if they contain four by four with a height of ten or more than this, they are complete reshut hayachid." Thus far his words.

And that which he wrote, "if it was enclosed for a dwelling," this does not pertain to a Torah-level reshut hayachid, and similarly regarding a courtyard, a fold, and a corral that he wrote—"that were enclosed for a dwelling"—for according to the Torah there is no distinction. Rather, because he intends to say a complete reshut hayachid, meaning that it is permitted for carrying by rabbinic law, he therefore required it to be enclosed for a dwelling. And similarly, what he wrote regarding alleyways that have three walls and a lechi on the fourth side—likewise, it would seemingly be so, for according to the Torah there is no need for the lechi, as three partitions constitute a reshut hayachid according to the Torah. However, in truth, even though such is the opinion of most of our teachers and it is likewise implied throughout the entire tractate of Eruvin, nevertheless the Rambam himself holds that three partitions without a lechi is not a reshut hayachid according to the Torah, but rather a karmelit. And regarding the definition of a karmelit, he wrote there, "an alleyway that does not have a lechi or a korah," see there. And in chapter 17, law 9, he wrote this explicitly, and this is his wording: "An alleyway that was validated with a korah—even though it is permitted to carry in all of it like a reshut hayachid, one who throws from within it to a reshut harabim or from a reshut harabim into it is exempt, for the korah is made for the purpose of a marker. But if it was validated with a lechi—one who throws from within it to a reshut harabim or from a reshut harabim into it is liable, for the lechi is like a partition on the fourth side." Thus far his words. And they have already challenged him on this, but in any case, such is his opinion, and there is a proof for his words from the chapter "Kol Gagot" (Eruvin 94a) where we learned: "A courtyard that was breached into a reshut harabim... and the sages say: one who brings from within it to a reshut harabim or from a reshut harabim into it is exempt, because it is like a karmelit." Thus, three partitions are a karmelit. But in truth, in the conclusion of the Gemara there, it concludes that this is only regarding the place of the partition—meaning, that now there is no partition there and it is like the sides of a reshut harabim, see there. (And so wrote the Tosafot Yom Tov, see there). And so it is explicitly explained there in the Yerushalmi (and this is its wording: "Rabbi Eliezer only said this regarding the place of the partitions when the corners were removed, etc." for in this Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is a reshut harabim and the sages disagree, but regarding the entire courtyard, everyone agrees that it is a reshut hayachid).

However, I have contemplated his words, that he did not say this regarding all things, and he also holds that three partitions constitute a reshut hayachid according to the Torah, but this is only if they stand in a place where the reshut harabim is not before them. But only in a place where the reshut harabim is before them—it is impossible to make it a reshut hayachid even according to the Torah, if it is not fenced in by some separation such as a lechi or a korah or gipufin, for the reason that it is the way of the public to enter into it, and how can we call it a reshut hayachid? Therefore, even according to the Torah, it is like a karmelit. And this is what he wrote here (halacha 4) regarding the definition of a karmelit, and this is his wording: "And so too a corner adjacent to the reshut harabim—which is a place surrounded by three partitions and the fourth side is the reshut harabim, such as a mavoi that does not have a lechi or a korah, etc." Thus far his words. And so too in the Commentary on the Mishnah at the beginning of Shabbat he wrote, and this is his wording: "And likewise, places that have three walls and the fourth side is opposite the reshut harabim are a karmelit." Thus far his words. Behold, he was precise—because the fourth side is the reshut harabim. And the reason is as we explained, and its source is from that of 'all roofs' that we cited—for even though the dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and the sages there is only regarding the location of the partition as I wrote, nevertheless, from what we say there in the Gemara: "This is what the rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: Do you not admit to us that where one carried from within it to the reshut harabim and from the reshut harabim into it that he is exempt—because it is a karmelit? So too, etc." see there. And the Tosafot (93b, s.v. chayav) were pressed to explain—"that is, when the side partitions fell," see there. But the Rambam explains according to its plain meaning. And according to this, even according to the Rambam—a mavoi that has three partitions, and the reshut harabim does not run before the breached side, but rather before one of the partitions—he admits that it is a reshut hayachid. And if one threw from it to the reshut harabim through an opening or a window—he is liable. (And I found him a companion—the Ramach, whom the Kesef Mishneh cited in chapter 17, halacha 9, see there, for it appears that such is his opinion, and delve into it).

It is a clear matter that this requirement of four tefachim in length and width for a reshut hayachid refers to the interior space alone, and one does not measure the thickness of the partition within the four tefachim. For this is explicitly clear from the wording of the Rambam that we cited, who wrote: "and between them is four by four." And so wrote Rashi in Eruvin (5a, s.v. u-man de-amar), and this is his wording: "for there are no partitions unless there is within the interior space four," see there. And so it is clear from the wording of the Tur and all the poskim (and so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And there are those who wrote that the partitions are also measured within the four tefachim (Bach and Taz, subsection 2), and they inferred this from what the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote in the first chapter of Shabbat regarding a beehive—that the walls combine with the interior of the beehive for a width of four, see there. And these are astonishing words, for certainly in a reshut hayachid of a vessel that is not fit for use within it as a reshut, and it is a reshut hayachid because one may place something upon it and use it, like that of a pit and its embankment in Eruvin (78a)—where we say that it also combines for a width of four, as the Tosafot wrote there. And he explains the reason—because one may place something upon it and use it, and it is like a rock ten high and four wide. But between partitions, where the usage is between the partitions, it is simple that we require the width of the interior space to be four. And there is no doubt in this, and so is the primary ruling, and see in section 45.

And know that I have seen one of the great authorities (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 3) who brought what the Rashba wrote in the book Avodat HaKodesh—that the partitions combine to four, but he made a distinction—that this is specifically with sturdy partitions, such that if one desired to cover it—he could cover it and make use of it, but weak ones do not combine, see there. And behold, this book is not under my hand; however, if he wrote thus—his intention was regarding "vessels," for so he wrote in the first chapter of Shabbat regarding a beehive, where he brought the words of the Tosafot that the partitions of the beehive combine to four, and he wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: "And I wonder at their words... rather, perforce, they only spoke regarding thick walls made to cover over them and to make use of, which is not the case with a beehive and a mat." Thus far his words.

And besides this, the matter is astonishing, to say regarding partitions standing on the ground that one may place something upon them and use it, for the usage is intended for its interior. And specifically regarding the rims of a pit, where it is common to place a board over the pit and use it, or upon a vessel, as it is written in Samuel (II 17:19) "and spread the covering over the mouth of the well and strewed groats upon it," but not regarding partitions that are on the ground. Furthermore, a width of four and more than four are equal, and just as one cannot say "place something upon it and use it" regarding a large width, so too regarding a width of four. Furthermore, in the Yerushalmi, chapter HaZorek, on the Mishnah regarding the rims of a pit and a rock, it says there: "The standing part and the space combine to four, provided that the standing part is greater than the space," see there. And if so, even regarding partitions on the ground you would have to say so, and is there anything as astonishing as this? (And it requires further study regarding the Tosafot and the Rosh regarding a beehive, that they did not mention this Yerushalmi. And it appears that it is not so regarding a beehive. And the Rashba there cited it. And perhaps his intention in this was to take issue with the Tosafot. However, in any event, the Rashba does not hold so regarding partitions, unlike what the Eliyah Rabbah wrote, and delve into this).

And even regarding vessels—not everyone agrees that the thickness joins with the width of the four tefachim as we have cited, for the Rashba disagrees on this, and so wrote the Tosafot (8a, s.v. rechava) in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel regarding that case of the beehive, that there must be an airspace of four within the beehive, see there. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 6 wrote: "Even a vessel—such as a chest or a cabinet or a beehive, if it contains enough to square four by four and it is ten high—it is a reshut hayachid," thus far their words. And they left their words unspecified as to whether the thickness joins or not, and from the Yerushalmi that we cited it is also explained that they do not join, and regarding the halachic ruling one should follow the stringent view.

Specifically, the law of a reshut hayachid applies to vessels, but the law of a karmelit does not apply to vessels. For example, a vessel that is four wide and is not ten in its height—which is the definition of a karmelit as will be explained—there is no karmelit in vessels, for the sages did not decree to nullify its status as a vessel since it is a vessel. (Rashi, Shabbat 8a, s.v. "pachot") And it is nullified to the domain in which it stands, and all the more so when it is less than four. And if the vessel is attached to the ground, it is a karmelit, (Magen Avraham, subsection 4) for since it is attached to the ground, it has left the status of a vessel. (Tosafot ibid. 11b, s.v. "ela") And this is not relevant to the laws of "detached and subsequently attached—whether it is like detached or not," for even if for other matters it is like detached, regarding the matter of carrying on Shabbat its law is like attached, since it is impossible to carry it like a vessel. And specifically when the vessel is in a reshut harabim or in a reshut hayachid we do not judge it with the law of a karmelit, but a vessel that stands in a karmelit—we judge it with the law of a karmelit. And therefore, regarding a ship in the water, we judge it with the law of a karmelit as will be explained in siman 355, see there. And the reason is simple—for even if it is nullified to the domain in which it stands, it is also a karmelit, for the sea and the river are a karmelit, as will be explained.

The walls surrounding a reshut hayachid, even their tops are judged as a reshut hayachid, even if they are not four wide. And it is a kal vachomer—if they create a reshut hayachid for others, for themselves all the more so. (Shabbat 99b) And similarly, the airspace of a reshut hayachid rises until the firmament, and its law is not like a reshut harabim or a karmelit, which only occupy up to ten tefachim, as will be explained. Therefore, if one fixed a pole in a reshut hayachid one hundred amot high, and threw from a reshut harabim and it rested on top of it—he is liable. And if one fixed a high pole in a reshut harabim, and placed on its top a basket that is ten high and four wide, the basket becomes a reshut hayachid, but what is beneath it does not become a reshut hayachid. And if the basket is not ten high, even though it is four wide—it does not become a reshut hayachid, and we do not say "pull down the partition"—since it is a partition through which kids can break through. And this is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, that wherever kids break through, we do not say "pull down the partition," and its measure is three tefachim from the ground. And similarly, a column ten high and four wide that does not have four tefachim at its base, even if there is no breaking through of kids, what is beneath it is not a reshut hayachid, but only its top. (Magen Avraham, subsection 1) And specifically, that there is a thickness of three tefachim in the narrow part, for then in one tefach there is no breaking through of kids. But if in the narrow part there is any thickness at all, it automatically becomes like a basket on a pole and there is breaking through of kids here and it is not a reshut hayachid. (Tosafot ibid. 101a, s.v. ve-yesh).

We hold that the holes of a reshut hayachid are considered like a reshut hayachid, (7b) meaning—holes in a wall that are on the side of the reshut hayachid, whether they are large holes or small, whether high or low, their law is like a reshut hayachid, because the owner of the courtyard uses them for his needs, and they are like the courtyard itself. However, the holes in a wall that are toward the outside are judged according to their height and width, and it will be explained in section 36.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "For some say that we require in these four tefachim by four tefachim—them and their diagonal, as he wrote below in siman 349." Thus far his words. That is to say—that below it will be explained that every person has four amot in the reshut harabim in which he may carry, and these four amot, their measure is them and their diagonal—that is to say, according to the measure of four amot with the diagonal. And since every amah in a square is an amah and two-fifths in its diagonal, it follows that for four amot, eight-fifths are added, and he is not liable until he moves it five amot and three-fifths in the reshut harabim. And if so, here too regarding the width of four tefachim, the width with the diagonal is required, which is five tefachim and three-fifths of a tefach, for this opinion holds that in all the measures of Shabbat, we must also calculate the diagonal.

I am astonished at our teacher, the Rema, for this is nothing other than the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam in Eruvin (51a, s.v. "ke-zeh"). Rashi there, and the Rashbam, and the Tosafot there and in Yoma 67a rejected this matter. Furthermore, from the words of the Rambam at the end of chapter 12, it is clarified otherwise—for he wrote regarding those four amot in the reshut ha-rabim: "Since it is permitted for him to walk and to carry within this entire square, and consequently he carries also in its diagonal, therefore one who transports is not liable until he transports also the diagonal," see there; and this is not a matter related to reshuyot. It appears to me that even our teacher, the Rema, only said it to be concerned for this opinion if some stringency is found, such as regarding a beehive where they said in the Gemara (8a): "One who threw a beehive into the reshut ha-rabim—if it is ten high and not six wide, he is liable. If it is six wide, he is exempt, for it is a reshut unto itself," see there. And for this, we require for a stringency "them and their diagonal." But to be lenient regarding a place that is ten high and four wide, not to judge it as a reshut ha-yachid but rather as a mekom petur—Heaven forbid to say so, for the halacha follows the many, and the majority of poskim do not hold accordingly.

What is a reshut harabim? We learned in a baraita (6a): "A main road, a large plaza, and alleys that are open to a reshut harabim—this is a complete reshut harabim." And "sartya" is the street, and Rashi explained (s.v. sartya): a highway upon which they travel from city to city, see there. That is to say, like our open streets. And "palatya" Rashi explained: the city square where they gather for commerce. And "open alleys" Rashi explained: that they are sixteen amot wide and open from both their ends to the sartya, see there; for with them, the streets and buildings were not like ours, as the place of the dwellings was in a courtyard, and many courtyards opened into an alley of three partitions. And only in the middle of the city was there a large street and it was called a sartya, for all the alleys exited to that street, and this street was completely open and upon it they traveled from city to city. And there was another large place like our market, completely open, where they gathered for commerce and it was called a palatya, and there were alleys whose two ends were open to the sartya, and their law is also like a reshut harabim. It emerges according to this that with them—the courtyards with all the alleys made an eruv together or each alley by itself and they would carry in them. But for the sartya and the palatya and the open alleys, an eruv does not avail for them, for one does not make an eruv for a reshut harabim with a tzurat hapetach but rather with doors, as will be further explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

And among the conditions of a reshut harabim - that the street be sixteen amot wide. We derive this from the wagons in the wilderness, for two wagons that traveled side by side were sixteen amot wide, as it is stated in the Gemara (Shabbat 99a), for we hold that a reshut harabim is sixteen amot wide, as we learn it from the Mishkan. And this is according to the measurement of our country, the country of Russia - twelve arshin which are four sazhen, as we explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 218, see there. And it also must not be roofed, for a roofed reshut harabim is not a reshut harabim, because it is not similar to the banners of the wilderness (ibid. 5a). And also that there be no wall around the city, or a mountain or a trench of ten tefachim in height or depth and four tefachim in the width of the trench. And even if there is a wall around it, if the gates are perforated from gate to gate in a straight line, such that the gates are aligned one against the other and they do not have doors, or even if they have doors but they are not locked at night - they are a reshut harabim, and the entire path aligned from gate to gate is a reshut harabim (Magen Avraham subsection 6). And even if only one door is locked at night - it also nullifies the reshut harabim, since it is not perforated (Taz subsection 5). And only locked doors nullify a reshut harabim, but not a tzurat hapetach, for what does a tzurat hapetach avail, behold it is perforated, and behold with doors it is obvious that there is a tzurat hapetach, and nevertheless if they are not locked it is nothing. And so our sages of blessed memory said in Eruvin (6b): "Jerusalem - were it not for its doors being locked at night, one would be liable for it on account of reshut harabim." And even though it is written "Jerusalem, mountains are round about her," it must be said that there were many places where the mountains did not surround them, for if not so, they would not have needed doors.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: "For there are those who say that any place through which six hundred thousand do not pass every day is not a reshut harabim." Thus far his words. The Tur wrote similarly, and this is his wording: "And a reshut harabim consists of streets and marketplaces sixteen by sixteen cubits wide, and open from gate to gate, and six hundred thousand pass through it." Thus far his words. This is the opinion of Rashi in Eruvin (59a), for since we derive all matters of Shabbat from the Mishkan, we require it to be similar to the banners of the wilderness, where there were six hundred thousand. And even though there were many more, since six hundred thousand were only the males from twenty to sixty years old, nevertheless, we only learn from that which is explicit in the verse. There are some among the Rishonim who agreed with this approach, but many disagree with this, and also the Rif and the Rambam did not mention this, and also in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud this was not explicitly mentioned.

And according to this approach, the entire permit for eruvin in our countries exists because in all our cities there are not 600,000 passersby and they are not like a reshut harabim; therefore, a tzurah hapetach is effective in them. For according to the first approach, since our streets are sixteen amot wide, there is no permit at all, as they are a complete reshut harabim and require doors that are locked at night, as has been written. And behold, the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch wrote that most of the poskim rule according to this approach (Taz subsection 6 and Magen Avraham subsection 7). However, one of the greats in the generation before us shook the world regarding our eruvin and demonstrated clearly that those who prohibit are many more than those who permit, but the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch did not see them because they were not printed in their days. Those who permit are: Sefer HaTerumah, the Semag, the Semak, the Maharam of Rothenburg, the Rosh, and the Tur, who stand by the approach of Rashi, of blessed memory. And those who prohibit are: the Rif, the Rambam, Rabbeinu Tam, the Rashbam, the Ra'avan, the Ramban, the Rashba, the Ritva, the Ran, the Maggid Mishneh, the Rivash, and several of the authors of the Tosafot—the first Rashba, Riva, Ri HaLevi, the Ram, and the Riaz (Mishkenot Yaakov siman 109); and also the Maharshal in Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah (chapter 3, section 8) decided not according to this approach.

And aside from this, they elaborated to explain that even the intention of Rashi is not that sixty ribo must be passing through it constantly, for that is something impossible. And if so, when Nehemiah cried out over the desecration of Shabbat from their bringing all merchandise to Jerusalem on Shabbat, and they issued decrees and established enactments—behold, the entire congregation was only four ribo; would he have made such a clamor over a rabbinic prohibition of karmelit and issued decrees over this? (Ibid.) Rather, the intention of Rashi is that it must be a path open through for the public, such that it would be possible for sixty ribo to pass through it, to exclude small paths that are only for one city and not for the whole world. And if so, all of our paths are reshut harabim. (Ibid. in the name of the Ritva.) But in any case, what does the elaboration avail after the eruvin have spread in most cities of Israel for many hundreds of years prior, and only based on this permission, and it is as if a heavenly voice went out—the halacha is like this view. And if we came to prevent it, not only would they not obey, but we would appear like madmen, for this matter has spread throughout all of Israel and in the poskim, that nowadays we have no reshut harabim except in a few of the largest cities in the world—such as royal cities that have sixty ribo in them, but not in our cities. And since it is a mitzvah and an obligation to find merit for the community of Israel, I have therefore set my heart to devise some permission, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

And it appears, in my humble opinion, when we examine the beginning of the chapter "HaZorek" (Shabbat 96b), that the Gemara asks: "Where is hotza'ah written in the Torah? For Rabbi Yochanan said: The verse says, 'And Moses commanded, and they caused a proclamation to pass through the camp, saying: Let neither man nor woman... and the people were restrained from bringing.'" Where was Moses sitting? In the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Levites was a reshut harabbim, for everyone was found near Moses our teacher (Rashi), and he said to Israel: Do not take out and bring from your reshut hayachid, from your tents (ibid.), to the reshut harabbim, see there. And it must be understood—why specifically that the camp of the Levites was a reshut harabbim, for behold, the entire camp of Israel was a reshut harabbim, as the camp of Israel was three parasangs by three parasangs (Eruvin 55b), and the entire camp was arranged for all the flags, these on the right and those on the left as is explained in the Torah, and the entire camp stood in a square, and if so, the entire camp was a reshut harabbim, so why specifically the camp of the Levites? And this cannot be said—that in truth this is the intent, that immediately when they took out from the tents they took out from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabbim, for if so, why did he need the introduction that the camp of the Levites was a reshut harabbim? And furthermore, in what way is the camp of the Levites different from the camp of Israel, for regarding the tents themselves it is obvious, as even the tent in which Moses our teacher sat is not a reshut harabbim, and in the street it is all a reshut harabbim.

Therefore it appears that the matter of a reshut harabim is as follows—that there should not be in a city more than one reshut harabim for the two sides of the city, east and west, and similarly one reshut harabim for north and south. And as its name implies, this place is a domain where all the public dwelling in the place turn there and not to another place. For example, in their times, all the cities were made of mavoi after mavoi, and within the mevaot were many courtyards, and in every courtyard many houses, and the mevaot were enclosed on three sides. However, in the middle of the city there was a great sertia to which all the mevaot were open, and it was perforated from both sides, and anyone who needed to go to another city necessarily exited through this sertia, and he had no other place, obviously. And similarly there was a great platia, where all gather for commerce. And this is what we learned in the Baraita—"What is a reshut harabim," meaning the one place where the public turns—a sertia and a platia. But if the city is not made of mavoi after mavoi, but rather all the streets are perforated to the four directions of the world, and one who lives in this street exits to another city through this street, and one who lives in another street exits through his street, and so too all the streets; if so, there is no place that can be called a reshut harabim, because there is no place there where everyone gathers.

And according to this, it works out well, for in the banners of the wilderness there were no alleys but rather streets like ours, and each and every tribe exited through a different place than the second tribe. Therefore, there was no place within the camp that would be called a domain where all the public walks, except for the camp of the Levi'im, for all of Israel needed to go to Moshe our teacher. And it turns out that only the camp of the Levi'im was a reshut harabim, and the camp of the Levi'im after the calf was outside the camp of Israel, as it is written: "And Moshe took the tent and pitched it for himself outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the Tent of Meeting," and there was the entire camp of the Levi'im and the Mishkan and the wagons, and therefore only there was a reshut harabim and not in the entire camp.

And according to this, for us, where we do not have mevo'ot but rather open streets, and in every city there are many streets, and these people exit outside the city via this street and those via another street, and there is no sartia here where everyone is compelled to exit from there and to there, it follows that there is no reshut ha-rabim here. And also a platia we do not have, for although in every city there is a market and shops, nevertheless there are many shops and places of commerce even not in the location of the market, and it follows that there is no platia here either, and their law is only like open courtyards or open mevo'ot, and we are able to make an eruv in them, and this is not a reshut ha-rabim that one may only make an eruv for with locked doors. And it further appears to me, that even if we were to say that regarding carrying out and bringing in we should not judge them as a karmelit but as a reshut ha-rabim—according to the poskim who do not require sixty ribo—nevertheless, regarding this matter that one does not make an eruv for a reshut ha-rabim, it only applies to a single reshut ha-rabim, like the sartia they had, which was one sartia in the entire city, and not like ours where there are many sarti'ot, for if so, this is not a sartia. However, it appears more likely as I wrote previously, as is proven from the Shas at the beginning of the chapter "HaZorek," as I have written.

And in truth, in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Shabbat it says: "From where do we know that hotza'ah is called a melakhah? Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: 'And Moshe commanded... and the people were restrained from bringing' — the people desisted from taking out from their houses and giving to the treasurers. Rabbi Chizkiyahu in the name of Rabbi Ila — even hakhnasah you may hear from it: just as the people desisted... so too the treasurers desisted from receiving from their hands and bringing into the chamber." Thus far his words. And the Yerushalmi did not mention that "Moshe was sitting" etc. And according to the Yerushalmi it is possible to say, in truth, that the entire camp was a reshut harabim, and according to the Yerushalmi it is necessary to say like the second reasoning in the previous section, that nevertheless regarding the matter that one may not make an eruv for a reshut harabim, it is only like one main road; but it appears more likely to say that the Yerushalmi also intends like our Shas, that the treasurers were presumably in the Levite camp near Moshe our teacher, and so the language implies, that "to bring into the chamber," and the chamber was in the Mishkan.

And know, that I have a proof from the Bahag, that there is a type of reshut harabim where an eruv is effective, as he wrote in the laws of eruvin: "And it is forbidden to carry anything on Shabbat four cubits in a reshut harabim, as it is said, 'And Moses commanded etc.'—'from doing' is not said, but rather 'from bringing,' which teaches that they were bringing by way of a reshut harabim. And it is not only necessary to say a reshut harabim that is a king's highway, where it is forbidden to carry within it four cubits where there is no eruv. But even from alleyway to alleyway etc." Thus far his words. And it is difficult—how can he say "where there is no eruv," which implies explicitly that with an eruv it is permitted, and yet one does not make an eruv for a reshut harabim? And one cannot say that his intention is regarding locked doors, for doors are not an eruv but rather complete partitions, as is proven from Eruvin (6a) where it is taught: "How do we make an eruv for a reshut harabim..." and it asks—"And can a reshut harabim be provided an eruv?" And afterwards the Gemara says—"And if you say that in this manner it cannot be provided an eruv but with doors it can be provided an eruv, but did not Rabbi Yochanan say: Jerusalem, were it not for its doors being locked etc." And it is difficult—what is the difficulty? Let us say that "how do we make an eruv" refers to locked doors. Rather, it is certain that for locked doors the term eruv is not applied to this, and if so, how does the Bahag say "where there is no eruv"? And the Bahag wrote with this same wording also at the beginning of the laws of Shabbat; see there. Rather, it is certain that there is a type of reshut harabim where an eruv is effective for it, and that is as we have said.

And know, that in the Gemara regarding the four domains, it considers the desert as a karmelit, and it challenges this from another baraita—which considers the desert as a reshut harabim. And it answers—it is not difficult: here is for the time when Israel dwelled in the desert, here is for this time. And Rashi and likewise all the Rishonim explained—that when Israel dwelled in the desert, it was a reshut harabim, and in this time it is a karmelit, for it is not a place of passage for the public, as desert travelers are not common. (Rashi) And they raised a difficulty against the Rambam, who wrote there: "What is a reshut harabim—deserts and forests and marketplaces and roads that open into them, provided that the width of the road is sixteen cubits and it does not have a ceiling over it." Thus far his words. And the Kesef Mishneh wrote in the name of Rabbi Avraham the son of the Rambam, that the explanation in the Gemara is the opposite: that at the time when Israel dwelled in the desert and their camps were arranged in it, it was for them like a valley and a field and what is similar to them, and in this time when anyone who wishes travels in it, it is like a reshut harabim. Thus far his words. And it must be said—that his intention is that at the time when Israel were in the desert, the entire desert was like a valley and a field, but the place where Israel stood, behold it is explained in the Gemara that the place of Moshe was a reshut harabim. And he wrote further that forests are superior to a valley and a field where the public does not go, whereas regarding a forest everyone needs wood; see there. And regarding the desert, it must be said that there are always caravans in it. And all the poskim did not agree with him, and they hold that deserts and forests are a karmelit, and so wrote the Rashba.

And behold, a road that goes from city to city, according to most poskim, is a reshut harabim, but according to those who require sixty ribo passersby, it is not a reshut harabim. And according to what we explained, it is a reshut harabim, since it is only one road, and any road that many pass through there is a reshut harabim. And this is only in a road that is open through, where one travels through there to everywhere, but a side road designated only for a certain village or a certain courtyard, it appears that it is not a reshut harabim. And there is a doubt in this time, when most travelers travel via the railroad, and it is simple that it is a reshut harabim according to all opinions—for certainly sixty ribo pass through it in some not-long duration of time, for certainly even according to the explanation of Rashi in Eruvin (6a), who requires that there be sixty ribo in the city, nevertheless regarding a road it is not relevant to say that sixty ribo should pass at once or in one day, for this is among the impossibilities. Rather, the intent is that sixty ribo will pass through there during the course of time, and in railroads it is certainly so; however, there is a doubt regarding the previous roads where now those passing through there are few, if this is called a reshut harabim according to the poskim who do not require the condition of sixty ribo, and it requires further study. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote according to the opinion of Rashi that sixty ribo passersby are required, and the Shulchan Aruch added "every day," see there, and according to this, even in the railroad there is no reshut harabim. But I do not know, for Rashi did not mention "passersby," but rather that sixty ribo should be present in the city. And in the Nimukei Yosef at the end of the laws of tzitzit, he wrote in the name of the Ritva, that one whose tzitzit were severed in a complete reshut harabim that is sixteen amot wide and open through and that sixty ribo are accustomed to pass through it sometimes, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he did not require "every day," and according to this, in the road of the railroad it is a reshut harabim according to all opinions, and it appears to me that that which is written "every day" is not exact.

This requirement that we necessitate sixteen cubits of width for a reshut harabim—even if in part of it it narrows and there are not sixteen cubits of width, we have no concern with this, for in any case it is a reshut harabim. For even alleys that are open to a reshut harabim from both their ends are a reshut harabim, even though they are not sixteen cubits wide, and we only require that they be thirteen and a third cubits wide as we find regarding the strips of wood for the wells. (See Tosafot Eruvin 6a). Therefore, alleys that run along the length of a reshut harabim, and they are sixteen cubits wide, even though in part of them they narrow and do not have sixteen cubits, in any case it is a reshut harabim since they are along the length of the reshut harabim. (This is in the Shulchan Aruch section 8, and the previous in section 9, and the Ha-Geraz in section 12 made them into two opinions, see there; yet in the Shulchan Aruch he did not mention a dispute regarding this and they are separate laws, for here it is where they go literally along the length of the reshut harabim, and the previous is open to a reshut harabim, and examine this carefully).

A mound that is sloped—if the slope is large, in a manner that within an ascent of four amot on the mound there is a height of ten tefachim, it is not easy to walk upon and it is a reshut hayachid. But if it does not reach a height of ten tefachim until one ascends five amot, its use is easy and it is easy to walk upon and it is a reshut harabbim. And similarly, the strips of wood for wells which were four double-posts that are eight, meaning a double-post at every corner whose height is ten tefachim and whose width is six tefachim, it is a reshut hayachid according to the Torah, for any designation of four partitions is a reshut hayachid from the Torah. (Magen Avraham) And this matter is explicit in Eruvin (20a), and even if the opening is very wide, in a manner where the breached part is greater than the standing part, nevertheless it is a reshut hayachid. And even though a breached part greater than the standing part is not a partition even according to the Torah, this is regarding those who set up reeds or boards close one after another, but in a place where there are four complete partitions it is a partition, even when the breached part is greater than the standing part. (Tosafot at the beginning of the chapter "Osin Passin" (Eruvin 17b) see there) And see in siman 362 section 29.

I have doubted whether, if the diomadin are each less than six tefachim, this is also called the name of "four partitions" and constitutes a reshut hayachid, or perhaps anything that is not six tefachim is a reshut harabim when the breached part is greater than the standing part. This is obvious to me: that with less than four tefachim it is nothing at all, as it is not a significant place; rather, even if they were four tefachim, it is not a reshut hayachid unless the openings were small in a manner where the standing part is greater, or at the very least the standing part is equal to the breached part. But when the breached part is greater, it appears in my humble opinion that it is a reshut harabim. And the proof is that regarding the strips of a well they were lenient to establish it according to Torah law, and despite all this, they did not permit less than six tefachim. And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi there, which says: "Because the breached part is greater than the standing part, they required diomadin etc." see there. And the reason is because the air from this side and the air from that side comes and nullifies it. But when there are two diomadin one next to the other, each being six tefachim is significant, and the airspaces do not have the power to nullify them (and so it is explicitly stated from the Tosafot Yeshanim there).

Any object that is in a reshut harabim, if the object is not three tefachim high, even if it is an object that the masses do not tread upon, such as excrement or thorns and the like, nevertheless they themselves are governed by the law of a reshut harabim. And if one moved an object from a reshut hayachid and placed it upon them—he is liable, for it is impossible for a reshut harabim to be leveled with a plane and a scraper, and of necessity there must be a slight elevation and a slight depression. Therefore—anything less than three is considered as lavud, meaning it is not a domain unto itself but is like the domain itself. And if it is three high, and likewise from three and above—if the object is four by four wide it is a karmelit, and this is when it is not a vessel but a mound or a stone, for with vessels there is no karmelit as we wrote in section 9. And if it is ten high and four wide—it is a reshut hayachid even in a vessel, as we wrote there, and if it is less than four in width—even if it is ten high it is a makom patur as will be explained.

And know, that it is stated in the Gemara (8a): "A pillar nine tefachim high in the reshut harabim and the public shoulders upon it" — meaning that in their walking they lean upon them and adjust their burdens — its law is as a reshut harabim. And Rashi explained (s.v. tishah) specifically nine, no less and no more, and likewise whether it is wide or narrow. And so wrote the Rambam there in chapter 14 (halacha 8), and the reason is that the sages estimated that at a height slightly more it is not fit for shouldering, and only at a height of nine — whether it is four tefachim wide or whether it is not wide. And the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur is that up to ten tefachim it is fit for shouldering and is a reshut harabim, but above ten — if it is four tefachim wide it is a reshut hayachid, and if it is not wide it is a makom patur, and even if there is space within it to carve and complete it to four. Meaning, that this is a hole in a wall facing the reshut harabim that is not four wide, and toward the side of the reshut hayachid it is four wide. And if so, there is room to say "we carve to complete," and it is as if from the outside it is also four wide — we do not say so, for we do not say "we carve to complete." And that which has been explained regarding "the public shoulders" that it is as a reshut harabim, this is when we see that they shoulder upon it, but that which is fit to shoulder upon does not avail if they are not accustomed to shoulder upon it. (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 8) and see in section 36.

A pit in the public domain—if it is not three tefachim deep, it is like the public domain, as has been written. And if it is three tefachim deep, it is as follows: up to a depth of ten, but not including ten, it is a karmelit when it is four tefachim wide; and at a depth of ten and above, it is a reshut hayachid. And if it is not four tefachim wide, it is a makom patur. (Tur) And it appears to me—that this is when it is three wide, but less than three is considered lavud, for people step over it and its law is like the public domain. However, this refers to the space above, but inside the pit itself, when one placed something there, it is not like the public domain, since its use there is not convenient; for this reason, we do not apply to it the law of "the public shoulder" as we do with a pillar. It further appears to me, that even in a very wide pit, if one placed a board that is four tefachim wide from this edge to that edge, and they walk by way of the board, it is a public domain upon the board. But with less than four, since it is not convenient to walk upon it, it is not like the public domain. (So it appears in my humble opinion; and see Magen Avraham, subsection 14).

A pit in a public domain ten deep and four wide, which is a private domain, even if it is full of water it is a private domain, for water does not nullify the partitions. However, when it is full of fruit—even fruit that one may move on Shabbat—nevertheless, while they are there they nullify the partitions, and it is not similar to water, which a person gazes into and sees through and the partitions are visible. And all the more so when it is full of straw and stubble or pebbles. And it is simple, that the pit we spoke of—this is a pit that does not go on an incline but rather goes straight down, but a valley that goes on an incline, we judge this like a mound in section 28, that if it collects ten within four, which is to say when one walks four cubits in it, ten handbreadths of the depth of the valley are collected, it is a private domain. And if it collects ten within five cubits, it is a public domain. And such pits, when they are full of water, are a karmelit, for their use is not convenient.

A puddle of water in the reshut harabbim that is not ten deep is nullified relative to the reshut harabbim if the public is accustomed to walking in it, for walking by means of difficulty is called walking. (8b) And even if it is not four wide, such that they do not walk inside of it but rather leap over it, it is a reshut harabbim, since they break through it and pass over it and do not go around it; therefore, when they go around it, it is a karmelit. And so too a board placed over the puddle or over the pit is a reshut harabbim, since the public breaks through it. And it appears to me, specifically when the board is four wide, for with less than this they are afraid to walk upon it. And a puddle that the public does not break through but rather goes around it, even if it is not ten deep, its law is like a karmelit as has been written.

The airspace of a reshut harabbim does not occupy except up to ten tefachim in height, but above ten—it is a makom patur, and it is not similar to a reshut hayachid which rises up to the sky, and this is a Halakhah LeMoshe MiSinai. And there is also a reason for the matter—for a domain that belongs to an individual, he rules over it even above and can build above ten and do all his desires. But in a reshut harabbim, the public does not have control there except below to walk and to place their objects there temporarily, but above they have no control to build or to repair, and therefore the reshut harabbim does not rule there except according to the measure of a partition, which is ten tefachim. However, this is only in the airspace, such as when one catches from the airspace that is above ten, it is permitted to bring it into a reshut hayachid by way of above ten. Or a fatty dried fig that was stuck to a wall above ten, for the fig sees the face of the airspace. But a hole in the wall or the top of a pillar, if it does not have four by four—even below ten it is a makom patur, and if it has four by four—even above ten it is a reshut hayachid, for behold, a reshut hayachid rises up to the sky.

Holes in walls that face the public domain and are not perforated through to the interior of the private domain are judged according to their dimensions. That is, if they are not three tefachim wide, they are nullified relative to the public domain and their status is like the public domain. If they are between three and four wide, but not including four, they are a makom pator, whether they are below ten or whether they are above ten. And if they are four tefachim wide, if they are below ten it is a karmelit, and ten and above they are a private domain. And if the holes are perforated through to the interior, it appears that their status is like the private domain. (So it is explicit from Tosafot 7b, s.v. "ve-halakha," see there). And that which we wrote in section 31 regarding a hole that faces the public domain and is not four wide, and faces the private domain and is four wide—the intention is not that the hole goes from one side to the other, for if so, it would all be a private domain; rather, the intention is that there is a hole on the side of the private domain and a hole on the side of the public domain and a partition in the middle. And know, that a hole that is below three adjacent to the ground is in every case judged like the public domain, for everything below three is like the solid earth. (See Tosefot Shabbat subsection 22 who wondered about the Magen Avraham subsection 9, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled, and the intention of the Magen Avraham is as I wrote, see there and examine it closely).

What is a karmelit? A place that is not a thoroughfare for the public and is also not surrounded by partitions according to their law. Therefore, even if the domain belongs to an individual, nevertheless, since it does not have partitions, it is not a reshut hayachid. And one should not ask—behold, we maintain that a karpaf larger than two beit se'ah that was not enclosed for dwelling is judged as a karmelit, even though it has partitions. However, this is not a question, for from the Torah it is certainly a complete reshut hayachid, and one who throws from a reshut harabbim into it is liable; rather, it is by rabbinic decree that it is forbidden to carry within it more than four amot, like a courtyard where they did not make an eruv, and we are dealing with a karmelit according to the Torah, meaning that from the Torah it is neither like a reshut hayachid nor like a reshut harabbim. This is the meaning of the term karmelit, like "armalit"—which is neither a virgin nor a married woman. From the Torah, every karmelit is a makom patur, and it is permitted to carry from a karmelit to a reshut harabbim and to a reshut hayachid, and likewise from them into it; rather, it is by rabbinic decree that it is forbidden in a karmelit and permitted in a makom patur, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And these are karmelit: a place that has four by four and is not ten tefachim high and is surrounded by partitions; and likewise a mound or a pillar that has four by four and is not ten high; and likewise a trench that has four by four and is not ten deep; and likewise the seas, the rivers, the forests, the deserts, the fields, and the valleys—which are groups of many fields—and the gardens, the alleyway, the sides of the public domain, and the marshes. And this is not similar to what we said in section 33, that water does not nullify partitions, for that is in a small pit within the settlement where the public uses it, and not in seas and rivers which are large places unto themselves and are not used there; therefore they are karmelit. And some disagreed, on the grounds that it does not rise ten within four, therefore it is not a reshut hayachid. (Magen Avraham subsection 14) And this is not necessary, for how is it relevant to make seas and rivers that go for hundreds of parsas into a reshut hayachid? And certainly if there is a pit ten deep and four wide in the sea, it is a reshut hayachid as is stated in the Gemara (100a), and this is because it is a pit unto itself, and not to make seas and rivers like a reshut hayachid. And even a pit in the sea is only a reshut hayachid from the Torah, but by rabbinic decree it is forbidden to carry (Magen Avraham ibid.), for everything in the sea is like karmelit. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote, "like a karpef and a mound"—is not precise, for there it is in more than two beit se'ah, and as the Ha-Garaz wrote in the Kuntres Acharon, see there; however, one could say the intention of the Magen Avraham is that here too it is so, for the pit is breached to the sea which is more than two beit se'ah, and delve into this).

Among them, there were platforms in front of the shops—a place where the merchants sit, and it is called an istovanit; and similarly, they had pillars in the plaza upon which the merchants hang merchandise, and there were platforms in front of them upon which the merchants sat. Therefore, these istovanit and platforms are a karmelit, because it is not convenient to use them there. However, between the pillars is a reshut harabim, even if there is not the measure of a reshut harabim between pillar and pillar, and even if there are not thirteen and a third amot here; nevertheless, since the many traverse them, they are secondary to the reshut harabim. (Ibid. subsection 11) And this, that the platforms are a karmelit, is when they have the measure of a karmelit, which is to say their width is four tefachim and their height is from three until ten. For if their height were ten, they would be a reshut hayachid, and if their width were not four, they would be a makom patur.

It is stated in the Gemara (7a) that a corner adjacent to the reshuat harabim is considered like a karmelit. Rashi explained: that one set a house back into his property and left some of his land for the reshuat harabim, for even though the public sometimes crowds in and enters there, nevertheless, since its use is not convenient because it does not run level with the entire reshuat harabim, it is considered like a karmelit. Rashi further explained another explanation: a house whose front stands at a diagonal, such that one corner is adjacent to the reshuat harabim and the second corner is drawn back from the reshuat harabim and inward, and the protruding corner prevents the public from entering directly into the indentation of the other corner, see there. And the Rambam there explains: "such as mavoi'ot that have three partitions and do not have a lechi or a korah on the fourth," see there. And this is according to his system, that three partitions are a karmelit from the Torah as I have written, but according to all the poskim, this is not included in the category of a karmelit from the Torah, for from the Torah it is a complete reshuat hayachid. Therefore, I wonder at the Tur and our teacher, the Rema, in section 14, for bringing his explanation for a corner, as this has no relevance to the laws of karmelit as he wrote. And it seems that because they were not concerned with distinguishing between a Torah prohibition and a rabbinic prohibition, and rabbinically it is indeed forbidden to carry; but if so, he should have also brought chatzerot and mavoi'ot that did not have an eruv, where it is forbidden to carry from chatzer to chatzer and from house to house. And it has already been explained that a roofed reshuat harabim is not a reshuat harabim, and it is also included in the category of a karmelit from the Torah, since it has no partitions it is neither a reshuat hayachid nor a reshuat harabim.

A house that is not ten high but is very wide is a karmelit. And if one hollows out within the house into the ground, within three adjacent to the walls, and completes it to ten—for example, if its height was eight and he hollowed out two tefachim into the ground—it becomes a reshut hayachid. And specifically when the hollowing is adjacent to the walls within three, for if it were distant three, the partitions would not join with this, as I wrote in siman 633 regarding the matter of a sukkah, see there. But a house whose interior is not ten, and its roofing completes it to ten, such that on the roof it is a reshut hayachid since it is ten high, but in its interior it is a karmelit, and in this case if he hollowed out—even far from the walls, if there was in the hollow four by four tefachim, which is a significant place, the entire house becomes a reshut hayachid, for behold in the outer partitions there are ten tefachim of height, and it is only in the interior that there are not ten tefachim. Therefore, when he makes there a place of four tefachim that is ten high, the whole is considered a reshut hayachid, for that which is from the hollow until the walls are like the holes of a reshut hayachid. (Gemara 7b: And I have written according to the words of the Rosh brought by the Magen Avraham, subsection 13, see there. And from Tosafot there, beginning with the words "And if," it implies that in any case the hollow is effective here even if it is not adjacent to the walls, see there and examine carefully.)

Even though there is no reshut hayachid without partitions, nevertheless, roofs are reshut hayachid because we say "gud asik mechitzta" — meaning, we view the partitions of the walls as if they ascend upward, and this is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. However, when do we say this? At a time when the roof is flush with the walls, such that it does not protrude beyond the walls, for the partitions are recognizable to one standing on the roof. But roofs that protrude over the partitions of the house, like our roofs which are called "kapes," we do not say "gud asik mechitzta," since the partitions are not recognizable to those standing on the roofs. Therefore, the law of these roofs is like a karmelit, even if it is very high and wide. However, if a window is open to it and the window is four by four, the entire roof is like the holes of a reshut hayachid and its law is like a reshut hayachid. And one should not ask why it is a karmelit, for the public does not frequent it and usage there is difficult, so let it be a makom patur. But the reason is that we do not find a makom patur with a width of four tefachim. (Rosh, chapter 9 of Eruvin, see there). And even though it will be explained that there is no karmelit above ten tefachim, and behold the roof is much higher, this is on the ground, for on account of the ground, the air that is above ten is not a karmelit. But here, the roof is like the ground, and up to ten tefachim in height from the roof becomes a karmelit (ibid.).

And similarly, ledges that protrude from the walls—if they are not four wide—they are a makom patur. And if they are four wide—they are a karmelit, for they are not ten high, and they must be four by four. And if a window of four by four is open to them from the house, such that one can use the ledges from the window, they are holes of a reshut hayachid and their law is like a reshut hayachid. And know, that the law of holes of a karmelit is not like a reshut hayachid, but rather like holes of a reshut harabim, and they are judged according to their measurements as I wrote in section 36; see there.

The definition of a karmelit—that it must not be less than four by four, and that it is not ten high, and it does not occupy the space above except until ten tefachim like a reshut harabim and not like a reshut hayachid, and above ten it is a makom patur as in a reshut harabim. And seas and rivers, the ten tefachim begin from the water; therefore, from the water until ten in height from the water—it is a karmelit, and above this it is a makom patur. And if we were to begin from the ground beneath the water, the water above would be a makom patur, and it is not so, for one who takes from them on the surface of the water until ten above it is a karmelit, and above this it is a makom patur. And a pit situated in a karmelit, even a hundred amot deep, is a karmelit if it is not four wide. And it is not a makom patur, for there is no makom patur in a karmelit, because since the karmelit surrounds it, it is also a karmelit against its will, for it is included within it. However, when it is four by four wide, it is a reshut hayachid, for regarding a reshut hayachid the power of the karmelit is nullified, for behold, even a pit in a reshut harabim ten deep and four wide—it is a reshut hayachid, and all the more so in a karmelit.

What is a makom patur? A place that does not have four by four [tefachim], and is three tefachim high and above up to the sky. Or a trench that does not have four by four, and is deeper than three, even if it is very long; since it does not have a width of four, it is a makom patur. And we do not say that in the total calculation it would have four by four, for what do we care for the total calculation, since its use is not convenient when it is not four wide. And so too partitions higher than three and above, when there is not four by four between them, meaning the space between them, and the partitions do not combine, as I wrote in section 5. (And so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 16). And know, that this is regarding a makom patur situated in a reshut harabim. But a makom patur situated in a reshut hayachid—its law is like a reshut hayachid, for even a karmelit that is in a reshut hayachid is a reshut hayachid. And the reason for the matter is that in a reshut harabim we require that use be convenient for the public, for the domain is not theirs except to walk and to use by way of their walking. Therefore, anything higher than three and above is not convenient for walking nor for use, and therefore it is either a karmelit or a makom patur. But in a reshut hayachid we do not require convenient walking and convenient use, for since the public does not interrupt it, everything is convenient for use, and it is all a reshut hayachid. And a makom patur that is within a karmelit, some say its law is like a makom patur in a reshut hayachid, and it too is a karmelit, for "it found its own kind and was awakened." That is to say, for even in a karmelit we do not require convenient walking and convenient use, and the entire law of makom patur is only in a reshut harabim. And some say that even in a karmelit it is a makom patur. And the reason is because it is impossible for a karmelit to be more stringent than a reshut harabim, for even regarding the matter of above ten [tefachim] it is like a reshut harabim and not like a reshut hayachid. (So it appears to me as the reason for the opinions, and both opinions were brought by the Ran in the first chapter of Shabbat, regarding "there is no karmelit less than four," see there. And in Eruvin 9a, it appears explicitly like the first opinion, see there and examine carefully).

The Rambam wrote in chapter 14, law 9: "A column in the reshut harabbim ten high and four wide—this is a reshut hayachid. If one fixed in its height a peg of any size—even if it is not three high, since it is fit to hang things on the peg and use it, this diminishes it and it becomes a karmelit. And one only measures for it from the peg and above, and even if he filled it entirely with pegs, this diminishes its height, for one hangs things on those pegs and uses them." Thus far his words. And this is according to the sugya in Eruvin (78a). However, according to the version of Rashi and the Tosafot there, the conclusion of the Shas is the opposite, that even if the peg is three high—it does not nullify it from being a reshut hayachid, because it is fit to hang things on. And even if he filled it entirely with pegs, he places something upon it and uses it, and therefore all the poskim did not bring the ruling of the Rambam, and it appears that he had a different version.