Siman 349

The Rambam wrote in chapter 12, law 15: "A person is permitted to carry in the public domain within the four cubits by four cubits where he stands, and he may carry throughout this entire square, and they measure with his own cubit. If he was a dwarf in his limbs, they give him four cubits according to the average of all people. And from tradition they said, that which is stated in the Torah, 'remain every man in his place'—that he should not carry outside this square, but only within this square, which is the length of every man when he spreads out his hands and feet, and within this alone he may carry." Thus far his words. This exposition is in Eruvin (48a) and Rava Meir says so, that a cubit is in order to spread out his hands and feet. But Rabbi Yehuda says, that the fourth cubit is in order to take an object from his feet and place it at his head. And it says there, that according to Rabbi Meir they are four—expanded, and according to Rabbi Yehuda—exact, see there. And even though between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda, nevertheless the Rambam was not concerned to transcribe anything but the words of Rabbi Meir which incline more toward simplicity, and for the law there is no practical difference whether it is this reason or that reason. And even though we say there that according to Rabbi Yehuda they are four exact cubits and according to Rabbi Meir expanded, this is certainly so, and since the Rambam did not mention expanded, it follows that they are exact. (See Kesef Mishneh who wrote that the Rambam's explanation is the opposite, that according to Rabbi Meir they are exact. And I do not know why we should be pressed to say that he ruled like Rabbi Meir against the rules of the Shas. And even though the Rif's version is as the Kesef Mishneh wrote, nevertheless for the Rambam it is more comfortable to say like Rashi and as I have written, and for the Rif they truly must be expanded, and delve into this.)

And behold, according to the opinion of the Rambam, it is permitted ab initio to carry within these four amot. And so it is clarified from the language of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch who wrote: "Every person has four amot in the reshut harabim in which he may carry." But the Ra'avad disagreed with him, for this was only permitted for one who went outside the techum, who is forbidden to move from his four amot, or one who spent the Shabbat in them, such that it becomes for him a fixed place, but without this—it was not permitted. And his reasoning appears to be that he could easily come to a Torah prohibition by carrying out beyond the four amot. And in the Mishnah in Eruvin (45a) this law was mentioned regarding one who did not acquire a shevitah and has only four amot. And the Rambam holds that since the sages said at the beginning of "Mi Shehechshich" that carrying less than four amot at a time over a great distance was only permitted in a case of loss, see there, one may infer from this that within his four amot it was permitted entirely, and we are not concerned that he will carry out beyond the four amot, for since he has only one place, he is particularly careful in this.

And that which he wrote—"that it stands at his side"—his intention is that the four amot are not two for each side with him in their middle, as there is one in the Mishnah there who holds so, but rather four amot to whichever side he desires. And when he has chosen for himself this side, he cannot choose another side, unless he left this place and came to another place, for in every place that he is, he has these four amot. And that which he wrote that "we measure with his amah"—this is from the elbow, which they call "ellenbogen," until the tip of the middle finger, which is the longest of all the fingers and is called an amah, and after its name this measurement is called an amah. And if he is a dwarf in his limbs, meaning that the measurement of his limbs is small relative to the measurement of his body, and his amah would not suffice for him, we give him a medium amah. And we have already explained that this, according to the measurement of our country Russia, is twelve "vershoks," and four amot are the measurement of a "sazhen" or "klafter" of our country, and three "arshins" of our country are the four amot of the Gemara, as we explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 218, see there. And in Yoreh Deah at the beginning of siman 201 we explained that the measurement of a medium man, which is three amot as written, this is according to our measurement two "arshins" and four "vershoks," and so the government estimates until today, and that this measurement is with the head, see there. (The Tosafot in Eruvin 48a, starting with "his body," wrote that this is without the head, but the Ramban and the Rashba disagreed with them, and there in Yoreh Deah we explained this with the help of Heaven).

And he wrote further: "Therefore, it is permitted for a person to lift an object from the reshut harabbim and give it to his fellow who is with him within four amot, and likewise his fellow to his other fellow at his side, even if they are a hundred and even if the object travels several mil on Shabbat—it is permitted, because each one only carried within his four amot." Thus far his words, and the Tur wrote likewise. And regarding this as well, the Ra'avad wrote that they only permitted this in a case of pressing need, and certainly it is so, for the matter is publicized. And also the Rambam necessarily intends this, for this thing is only done due to great necessity. However, there are some of the poskim who disagree entirely with this law and say that the halacha is not so. (The Rezeh and the Rosh according to the opinion of the Rif in Eruvin 95.) And know, that even according to those who permit, one must be careful that the object does not go out of the techum of its owner, or in the case of a hefker object that does not acquire a place of rest as written in siman 401. And according to all opinions, it is forbidden to carry an object less than four amot at a time, even during bein hashemashot and even in a karmelit, because one person is very likely to err and carry it beyond four amot, whereas with many people each one will remind his fellow, but not so with one person; therefore they decreed against this even during bein hashemashot. And there is one who says that in a karmelit and during bein hashemashot, which are two leniencies, it is permitted. (Taz) And it is simple that all this applies in the reshut harabbim itself or in a karmelit, but from a reshut hayachid to a karmelit, and all the more so to a reshut harabbim, within four amot is not relevant, for as soon as he takes it out from domain to domain—he is liable; and because there are those who err in this, I have written it (ibid.).

If there were two people, each of whom has four amot, and some of the amot of this one are swallowed within some of the amot of his fellow—for example, where there are six amot between them, and consequently, in the middle two amot both are permitted to carry—they may bring and eat in the middle, provided that each one does not take out from his own into that of his fellow. And the novelty in this is that we do not decree—since they are together, this one might use the place of the second because he sees that the second is using it and they are eating together; nevertheless, we do not decree. And if there were three, and the middle one is swallowed between them—for example, where between the two outer ones there are eight amot, and consequently the middle one has two amot in the area of this one and two in the area of that one—the middle one is permitted to use with each of the outer ones his two amot that are swallowed with each of the outer ones. And in this there is an even greater novelty: even though he uses with both of them, and the two outer ones are forbidden to one another, and there is here a multitude of people and a multitude of uses, and behold there is reason to decree that one of them might err and use a place forbidden to him, and specifically the middle one who uses with both of them could easily err, nevertheless we do not decree. And even though regarding courtyards in such cases we do decree, as I wrote in siman 378, that is because there is a multitude of people there, but here they did not decree. (Gemara 48a)

The Rambam wrote: "Since a person is permitted to carry within any square that is four cubits by four cubits, and it turns out that he carries along the length of the diagonal of this square five cubits and three-fifths of a cubit, therefore one who conveys or throws is not liable until he conveys beyond five cubits and three-fifths of a cubit. And every place where we said 'from the beginning of four to the end of four,' or 'one who conveys four cubits in the reshut harabbim is liable'—it is from the beginning of the diagonal of four cubits until its end, and if he conveyed less than this, he is exempt. It turns out there are three measures here. How so? One who uproots an object from this place in the reshut harabbim and places it in another place in the reshut harabbim, if there were up to four cubits between the two places—it is permitted. If there were more than four cubits between them and they are still within five cubits and three-fifths of a cubit—he is exempt. If there were exactly five cubits and three-fifths of a cubit between them—behold, he is liable, for he has conveyed the object beyond the diagonal of the square." Thus far his words.

And many have raised difficulties against him, for from where does he derive the making of these distinctions? However, the truth is, from what they said in the Gemara: "One who carries four amot in the public domain is not liable until he carries them and their diagonal" (Eruvin 51a), it is explained that regarding the matter of liability it is so, but regarding the matter of prohibition the diagonal is not required. And behold, like the opinion of the Rambam, such is also the opinion of Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, and the Rashba, of blessed memory. And there are some of the poskim who hold that they only said "them and their diagonal" when one carries to the diagonal of the world, but in a straight direction, one is liable for four amot; and this is the opinion of the Rashbam in Tosafot ibid. and the Ramakh. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, this is not relevant to the measurements of four tefachim in a private domain, for in this a diagonal is not applicable. And the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam is that in this too a diagonal is required, and we have already written this in siman 345, section 12; see there. (In Eruvin ibid. the reason is explicitly implied to be because of the corners—"thus shall be all who rest on the Shabbat," and so Rashi explained; see there. And the Rambam gave another reason, and perhaps his intention was a reason for the verse).