Siman 360

In siman 362 it will be explained that mechitzot can be warp without woof or woof without warp. And the explanation of the matter is that since it is a halacha given to Moses at Sinai that anything less than three tefachim is considered labud, if so, a mechitza which must be ten tefachim high can be made through labud. That is, to stand reeds ten high, and each reed shall be slightly less than three distant from the second—and this is called warp without woof. And it is also possible to make a mechitza by means of three ropes, one above the other, and between each rope less than three, and similarly from the first rope to the ground, and it turns out there are three spaces of less than three each. And if so, if the ropes in total are slightly more than a tefach in their thickness—it is a mechitza of ten tefachim, and this is woof without warp.

Nevertheless, the sages said that even though according to the Torah they are complete mechitzot, nevertheless, according to rabbinic law, it is forbidden to carry within such mechitzot in an area greater than beit satayim, just as they forbade in karpifot. However, in karpifot they forbade because they are not enclosed for dwelling, and here they forbade even if they are enclosed for dwelling—such as one who is traveling on the way and wishes to rest on the way, and pitches a tent for himself and opens an entrance to the air, and afterward encloses the place with such mechitzot because he has nothing from which to make complete mechitzot, and behold there is an entrance here and it was subsequently enclosed, for he enclosed them to dwell in them on Shabbat (Rashi 16b, s.v. "lo")—rather, the prohibition is due to the inferiority of the mechitzot. And the general rule of the matter is this: that the sages forbade every type of enclosure that does not resemble the enclosure of a courtyard or a house, whether because they were not enclosed after the opening of the house to them, or because of the inferiority of the mechitzot themselves. If we were to permit carrying in the whole of it in a large area greater than beit satayim, they would not distinguish between these and a complete karmelit such as a valley, a field, a forest, or a garden, because in the eyes of people, even in such cases, it is not considered a complete reshut hayachid. Therefore, they forbade carrying in the whole of it, and one is only permitted to carry within them four amot and no more, and they are included in the prohibition of a karmelit.

And nevertheless, it is not entirely similar to a karpef that was not enclosed for habitation, for in a karpef it was not permitted under any circumstances to carry in the whole of it if it is more than beit satayim, whereas with these mechitzot they permitted a caravan to carry in the whole of it, even in a very large one. And three people are considered a caravan, provided that there is not a minor or a non-Jew among them, for these are not counted in the quorum of three. And it appears to me that the same law applies to a deaf-mute or one who is mentally incompetent, that they are not of the quorum, and likewise a man and his wife are as one. And the reason appears to me to be that the sages were concerned for a caravan with many burdens when they are on the road; surely it is necessary not to obstruct their path by giving them a fixed limit for the area, and it is also impossible to forbid them from carrying except within four amot, for in this they would come to a loss, as is understood; and only for an individual did the sages estimate that beit satayim is sufficient for him. And since there is no fixed number for a caravan, therefore the sages said that three people have the law of a caravan, for three are called "many." (As we expound regarding a zavah—"days" means two, "many" means three).

This is what the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1: "An individual who spent Shabbat in a valley and surrounded it with deficient partitions, such as warp without woof or woof without warp, up to beit satayim—it is permitted to carry in all of it; from beit satayim and further—one may only carry within it four amot, and such is the law if they are two. But if they are three Israelites—they are considered like a caravan and it is permitted to carry in all of it, even if it is very large, provided they do not surround more than their needs, so that there does not remain a beit satayim vacant that they do not need for use. But if there remains a beit satayim vacant—one may not carry in the entire enclosed area, but only within four amot." Thus far his words. But less than a beit satayim—we have no concern with it, for it is impossible to be exact, and therefore as long as there does not remain vacant a significant area like the courtyard of the Mishkan, we are not concerned about it. And even though in every place beit satayim and less than beit satayim have the same law, that is regarding enclosing for a dwelling as I wrote in siman 358, and also from what we derive from the courtyard of the Mishkan as I wrote there. However, here regarding a significant area that should not remain vacant—certainly only a beit satayim has significance, and not less than a beit satayim.

And know, that the words of the Rambam in this matter are very perplexing, as he wrote in chapter 16, law 12: "An individual who spent the Shabbat in a valley and made a partition around himself, if it contains up to a beit satayim - it is permitted to carry in its entirety. And if it was more than a beit satayim - one may only carry within it four amot. But three constitute a caravan, etc." Thus far his words. And he did not mention at all that this is specifically regarding inferior partitions, like warp without woof or woof without warp, contrary to the words of the Shas and all the poskim, and I am surprised by the commentators who were not awakened to this.

And it appears clear to me that the Rambam had a different approach in this, for behold, in the chapter "Kol Gagot" (Eruvin 93a) we say: "Rav Yehuda said: Three karpifot one beside the other, and the two outer ones are fenced with 'gipufin' and the middle one is not fenced with 'gipufin', and there is an individual in this one and an individual in that one—they are treated like a caravan and we give them all their needs, etc." see there. Behold, he did not mention unstable partitions, but rather simply "maligned." And it is true that Rashi, of blessed memory, explained there, and this is his wording: "That they surrounded it with warp-threads or with woof-threads" see there, but behold, the Gemara is not dealing at all with these partitions, and therefore the Rambam explains that in truth it is so, that even with good partitions the law is thus. And the reason is because they are temporary partitions, for behold, when they travel from there they will breach them, and therefore they are not like a complete dwelling house, and they only permitted a beit satayim for an individual or for two, and only for a caravan did they permit much. (And in the Mishnah of the first chapter 16b: the essence of their dispute is whether such a partition was permitted entirely, and so explained the Rambam and the Bartenura. And even according to Rabbi Yehuda who says in the Gemara that this is regarding more than a beit satayim, nevertheless, this is all on the road, but in a settled area they were not permitted except according to the later Sages, who say one of two things. And the Gemara concludes on 17a that this is to permit for an individual in a settled area see there, and the halacha is like them, but according to all the other Tannaim in the Mishnah, such partitions were not permitted in a settled area. And consequently, according to the later Sages, there is no difference at all between these partitions and complete partitions. And since it is so, even with complete partitions they did not permit more than a beit satayim for an individual. And it also appears to me that everyone holds so, for behold, Rabbi Yehuda says: "All partitions of Shabbat were not permitted for an individual more than a beit satayim," see there, behold, he says this regarding all partitions. And Rashi explained there that he says this regarding these partitions, but if so, what is this wording "all partitions." Therefore, the Rambam explains according to its plain meaning, and so it is proven in the Tosefta at the beginning of chapter 2 where it is taught: "A caravan that camped on a mound ten tefachim high or in a valley ten tefachim deep... provided that they fill all of it and do not leave over within it a beit satayim" see there, and they are complete partitions. And there is also proof for this from the Yerushalmi on this Mishnah, which asks if according to the Rabbis there is a distinction between an individual and a caravan, and it resolves it from this Tosefta see there, behold, for everyone there is one law; and examine this carefully).

If there were three and they enclosed a large area according to the law of a caravan, and one of them died on Shabbat—nevertheless, they are permitted to carry in the entire enclosure on this Shabbat, for we say: since it was permitted at the onset of Shabbat, it is permitted for the entire Shabbat. And so too the opposite, for if there were two and they enclosed more than two se'ah, and one or more was added on Shabbat—nevertheless, they are forbidden from carrying, since Shabbat entered in a state of prohibition, we say: "since it was forbidden, it remains forbidden." And this is a great principle in all the laws of eruvin, that when it is damaged on Shabbat it is not forbidden, and when it is repaired on Shabbat it is not effective, for the primary matter depends on the onset of Shabbat, and we say "since it was permitted, it is permitted" and "since it was forbidden, it remains forbidden." And this is specifically in a place where there is no change in the partitions themselves, but when the partitions themselves were changed—we do not say so, and any partition that is made on Shabbat is called a partition (Shabbat 101b) and it will be explained in siman 374 with the help of Heaven.

And regarding this law that was explained concerning a caravan, that when two se'ah remain vacant—they are forbidden to carry, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1 that this is specifically when they enclosed more than six se'ah. But if they did not enclose more than six se'ah, even though there are two se'ah vacant, since they are three it is permitted. Thus far his words. And Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote explicitly to the contrary, and this is his wording: (17a, s.v. "lo") "And even though they are three, if they only require two se'ah, and they enclosed four se'ah—the partitions are also nullified." Thus far his words. Behold, even for four it is nullified, and certainly for six. (Taz, subsection 2) And so it is explained from the words of the Rif regarding the law in the previous section, as he wrote: "If they were three and they enclosed six se'ah and one of them died—they are permitted... the Shabbat causes etc." Thus far his words. And why did he not inform us that with six se'ah, even if two se'ah are vacant from utensils—it is permitted, for prior to this he deals with this law. It is understandable that the Rambam and the other poskim did not mention six se'ah regarding the law of "one of them died," but rather "enclosed all they needed," which implies even a great deal; but the Rif, who cited six se'ah and informed us of the permission when one of them died, if so, he should have also informed us of the permission of two se'ah being vacant. Rather, certainly he holds like Rashi, of blessed memory. And it is true that the Mordechai in the name of the Ri ruled accordingly like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, at the end of the first chapter, see there; but one could say that he holds that to every person we give two se'ah, and to two—four, and to three—six, as there is one who holds so. (See the Beit Yosef who was uncertain about this)

If there were three people and each one enclosed for himself a space, one next to the other, to dwell there on Shabbat, and they were open to one another and made an eruv together so that they could carry from one to the other, if there is in each one only a beit satayim—it is obvious that they are all permitted to one another. And if there is in one of them more than a beit satayim—they are all forbidden; so it is proven in the Gemara (93a). And it appears to me that this is when they are not equal in their width, and perforce there are gipufin from one to the second or from the second to the third, or even if they are equal in their width but one of them made gipufin, for now they are divided from one another even though they made an eruv together, and it is impossible for them to have the status of a caravan. But when they are equal in their width and have no gipufin at all, and each one is breached in its fullness to its fellow—for now they have become a caravan and we give them all they need, since there is no recognition that they are three separate dwellings. But when there are gipufin, even though the openings are more than ten—nevertheless, it does not make them as one, for as a stringency, more than ten is like breached in its fullness to forbid its fellow, but not as a leniency. And there is one who says that even as a leniency, more than ten is like breached in its fullness and it is as if they all dwell as one—and they become a caravan (Magen Avraham, subsection 7), and it does not appear so. (The Tosefot Shabbat, subsection 18, disagreed with him with clear proofs, and the Machatzit HaShekel cited him, see there; and according to our words, you will understand why the Gemara there depicted it specifically with gipufin, because if not so, they would become a caravan, and delve into this).

Above in siman 55 it has been explained that when there are two dwellings joined together, a large one and a small one, and the small one is breached in its entirety into the large one, and for the large one there remain gipufim from here and from there—we say the dwelling of the large one is in the small one, but the dwelling of the small one is not in the large one. That is to say, the small one is nullified to the large one, and it is as if the owner of the large one stands also in the small one, and not vice versa; see there. Therefore, also in this law of three karpifot one beside the other where they made an eruv between them, if the outer ones are wide and the middle one is narrow, such that the middle one is breached in its entirety to the outer ones, and the outer ones have gipufim exceeding it from both sides—the outer ones are considered as if they stand in the middle one, and they become a caravan, and we give them all their needs, and therefore even if the middle one is very large, they are permitted. And consequently, even in the outer ones we give them all their needs, for since they became a caravan in the middle, the outer ones are like a courtyard to the middle one. And some say that here "courtyard to the middle one" is not applicable, for we only find this to create a gatehouse, and here it is not a permanent place. Furthermore, how could they be secondary to the middle one to become like its courtyard, for behold they are larger than it? Therefore, for them there is no permission except for beit satayim. And if one of them is more than a beit satayim, the middle one is also forbidden, for behold it is breached in its entirety to each of the outer ones.

And if it is the reverse, where the middle one is larger than the outer ones, and the outer ones are breached in their fullness to the middle one, and the middle one is fenced from here and from here and there is an individual in each one—we only grant to each one two beit seah, for here even if we say that the large one dominates the small one and it is as if the middle one stands in one of the outer ones, ultimately it is only two. And if one of the outer ones is more than two beit seah—it alone is forbidden and the middle one is permitted, for it has fences and is not breached in its fullness, provided that it is not more than ten, for more than ten is like being breached in its fullness. And even though it is perforce more than ten according to the calculation, as it is more than two beit seah when we examine this closely, for one can say that it has many openings, and each opening is less than ten. (And in the Tosefot Shabbat he was pressed on this, see there). And if the middle one is more than two beit seah—the outer ones are also forbidden, for they are breached in their fullness to a place that is forbidden to them. And this is all when one person is in each of the three enclosures.

But if two people are in the middle one and one in each of the outer ones, or two in each of the outer ones and one in the middle one, and the middle one is large and enclosed and the outer ones are small and breached in their fullness—we give to the two outer ones all that they require, for the owners of the middle one have domain over the outer ones. Therefore, when there are two in the middle and one in the outer—there are three in the outer, and similarly in the second outer one. And when there is one in the middle and two in each of the outer ones—when the middle one turns to this outer one there are three, and similarly to the second outer one. And do not wonder how we turn them here and there, the two middle ones or the single middle one, how we turn him here and there, for this is not difficult at all, as we say that the middle ones have their residence in the entire perimeter here and there. And according to the first opinion in section 10—the middle one is also permitted in more than beit satayim, for it is considered like a courtyard for them, (Magen Avraham subsection 6) and when the middle one is small there is no need for all this.

And know, that which has been explained—that where one is flanked by projections and one is breached in its fullness, this one breached in its fullness is forbidden—according to what will be explained later in siman 374, that what is visible from the outside and level from the inside is judged as a lechi and as a partition, so too here, this partition that is flanked by projections is visible from the outside also to the one breached in its fullness, as is understood. And you do not find this except when the walls of the smaller one enter into the larger one three tefachim, for then everyone sees that the partition of the projection from the larger one is three tefachim distant from it; for if not so, it would be as if all were flanked by projections, and each would have only a beit satayim. And there, these detailed laws will be explained with the help of Heaven.