Siman 363

It has already been explained in siman 345 that according to the Torah, any place surrounded by three partitions is a reshut hayachid. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, we explained there that if the fourth, breached side faces the reshut harabim, it is a karmelit according to the Torah, because the masses push into there, and it is not a reshut hayachid. But if the fourth, breached side does not face the reshut harabim, it is a reshut hayachid according to the Torah, and the opinion of the Tur also appears so. (As the Taz wrote in subsection 1. And with this you will understand the words of the Rambam, who sometimes calls three partitions "reshut hayachid according to the Torah," such as at the beginning of chapter 17, and sometimes calls it "karmelit," and the great authorities found this difficult, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote at the beginning of chapter 17, and the words of the Maggid Mishneh are also forced, but according to our words it is simple, as I have written, and examine it well).

And this is from the Torah, but the sages forbade carrying within an enclosure of only three partitions until they make a rectification also on the fourth side. And this is in a mavoi—a lechi or a korah is sufficient, and in a chatzer they required either a strip of four tefachim on one side or two thin strips on two sides, as will be explained. And the reason they were more stringent in a chatzer than in a mavoi is because whatever is made more for dwelling and for modest uses—it requires more of a fence. And in chatzerot there are many people who eat there and use it there and do things of modesty, which is not the case in a mavoi. (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba) And it further appears to me, that whatever is closer to the houses—requires a better fence so that it will be somewhat similar to a house, for since the entire essence of what the sages decreed was in order not to exchange it with a reshut harabim, therefore that which is completely close to the house, if they do not make a good rectification in it—the great difference between it and the house will be visible, and they will err also with a reshut harabim. And according to this, the chatzer which is adjacent to the house—requires a good fence, so that it will be similar to the house, and the mavoi which is adjacent to the chatzer—a lesser fence is sufficient for it, and also with this it will be similar to the chatzer close to it.

And all these rectifications apply when the width of the fourth breached side is not more than ten amot. But in more than ten—these rectifications are not effective, whether in a mavoi or in a chatzer, until they make a tzurant hapetach as was written at the end of the previous siman. Therefore, a chatzer that was breached in its fullness, meaning that the entire fourth side was breached, and it is ten amot or less than this—it is permitted with a pas four tefachim wide that he shall place on one side of the breached area. And he shall place it adjacent to the wall within less than three tefachim, for if he distances it three tefachim—it is nothing. And if he wishes to rectify it from both sides of the breach—it is sufficient with two pasin of two minimal amounts, and he shall place one near this wall within less than three tefachim, and one at the wall opposite it within less than three tefachim from the wall. And the same law applies if the fourth wall was not breached in its fullness, such that a length of four tefachim at a height of ten remained on one side, or that two minimal amounts remained from both sides. And some say that two minimal amounts that remained are not effective until there is a width of a tefach in them, for specifically when he makes two minimal amounts there is a recognizable mark because of his action, but in a remnant they are not effective until a tefach remains from here and a tefach from here. (Tosafot 10. end of the heading 'Rabbi', and the Beit Yosef ruled according to this opinion. And see Taz subsection 3, and so wrote the Ri in the Rif, and so wrote the Rema in Darkhei Moshe letter 1. But from Rashi 12. heading 'Befasei' it does not appear so, see there and examine carefully).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1, that even if there are not four tefachim in the breach, since it is in its full width—it requires repair until there is less than three in it. Thus far their words. And even though regarding a mavoi the Tur ruled later that we specifically require four, and also in the Shulchan Aruch section 28 two opinions were brought regarding this in a mavoi, nevertheless in a chatzer they were stringent according to the first resolution in the Gemara (12a). And this is from the stringency that exists in a chatzer more than a mavoi, because of the reasons we explained in section 2. And there is one who says that here it is dealing with where the chatzer is very wide on the inside and at its edge it is narrow (Magen Avraham sub-section 1), but when the entire chatzer is not four wide—nothing is required. And these are astonishing words, for in a chatzer repair is required in every case (Eliyah Rabbah sub-section 3), and behold the opinion of the Rambam is so even in a mavoi, and we see that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch divide between a mavoi and a chatzer. Furthermore, the primary factor is the width of the edge, and such is the primary law. (And so wrote the Mordechai). And if it is wider than ten amot, or the breach is more than ten, even if it is not in its full width—only a tzurath hapethach is effective, as I wrote at the end of the previous siman.

A mavoi, and this is from the expression "the entrance [mevo] of the city" (Judges 1:24), and here it is the entrance of the street; because for them it was not like it is for us, where from the courtyards one goes to the street, but rather in front of the courtyards was an entrance, which was fenced on three sides, and several courtyards opened into it, and the entire city was thus, and they would enter from the courtyards into the meva'ot. And all the meva'ot were open to a large street, and it is called "strata," and it is the reshut harabim. And they would go from the courtyards to the meva'ot, and from the meva'ot to the large, through-street, which is the strata, as I wrote in siman 345. And since the mavoi is breached in its fullness on the fourth side, the sages forbade carrying in it if they do not make a tikkun for a distinction, so that one does not come to exchange it for a reshut harabim; for in the eyes of the masses it is all one, since in a mavoi many also turn there—they will say "what is the difference to me between a mavoi and what is the difference to me between a reshut harabim," therefore they required a tikkun.

And what is its rectification? A lechi or a korah. And what is a lechi? This is a board or a reed ten tefachim high, and its width and thickness may be any amount, even less than a finger (Beit Yosef, Bach, Magen Avraham), and he shall place it at the entrance of the mavoi near the wall. And it is kosher if made from any material, even from living creatures, provided that he ties it with ropes to the walls of the mavoi with pegs protruding from the walls, so that it does not move from there. And he must also ensure that it does not crouch down and reduce its height to less than ten tefachim. And a person is also kosher for a lechi, if he stands there the entire day until the conclusion of Shabbat, even if he knows that they placed him there for a lechi. And it is not similar to a mechitzah made of people, where specifically it must be without their knowledge, as I wrote in the previous siman, for that is because many people are required for it and the matter creates a stir, but this is not so regarding a lechi. Therefore, even a person must be tied there, for if not so, he will certainly not stand in one place the entire Shabbat, and it will turn out that they carried in prohibition. (So it appears in my humble opinion in the explanation of the words of our teacher, the Rema, at the end of section 3. And the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 3, require great study, for in his opinion, even for a lechi it requires being without knowledge, and how could he tie him, for he would immediately sense it; and so the Tosefot Shabbat, subsection 7, disagreed with him, see what he wrote and examine it closely).

And the same law applies if there is a bit of a wall in the fourth side ten tefachim high - it counts as a lechi. Provided that it has a width of a tefach, for even though regarding one who sets it up for the sake of a lechi anything at all suffices, because there is a recognition when he sets it up. However, regarding that which remains from the wall - there is no recognition in less than a tefach, as I wrote in section 3 regarding a courtyard. Nevertheless, regarding a lechi that stands on its own, which is valid as will be explained - it does not require a tefach, for since it stands by itself the matter is recognizable. Furthermore, since we require that they rely upon it from the eve of Shabbat, as will be explained, it is as if they set it up (it appears to me).

A lechi that if the wind blows upon it strongly it will be uprooted—it is not a lechi. And specifically a common wind, but if a common wind does not uproot it, even though an uncommon wind would uproot it—we have no concern regarding it. (It appears to me) and it is not specifically that it be uprooted, but even if it sways by means of the wind—it is not a lechi. (Magen Avraham, subsection 4) And specifically a strong swaying, like the branches of trees that sway here and there without pause. But a slight swaying—we are not concerned with it (It appears to me) (what the Magen Avraham wrote in the name of the Maharik has no relevance to this siman).

It is necessary that the lechi not be distant from the wall by three tefachim. Some say the reason is so that the open spaces on both sides do not nullify it (ibid. subsection 5 in the name of the Ri). According to this, when the lechi is wider than three tefachim, it is permitted, since the standing portion is greater. (ibid.) But some say the reason is that when it is distant from the wall, it is not a recognizable mark; for even though a lechi is categorized as a partition, as will be explained, nevertheless it is certainly also for a recognizable mark. (ibid.) And according to this, even if it is very wide, it is invalid when it is distant three tefachim from the wall. This is the primary view, for so wrote the Tosafot (10b, starting with "And he makes"), see there.

Since a lechi does not require a specific measure in its thickness or width, therefore, even if one joined it from fragments and fragments of fragments—it is kosher. And so too, stones protruding from the wall, one above the other less than three [tefachim] apart—it constitutes a lechi (Gemara 15a), if there are ten tefachim in height, even though there is a gap between them. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7, that therefore one may make a lechi from lime smeared on the wall, provided that he is careful that it is not erased more than three from the ground. Thus far his words. And it is not exactly three, for we require less than three, as any lechi that is three tefachim high from the ground is pasul, for a lechi has the status of a mechitza, and it is a mechitza through which kids can break through. And it appears that the lime must have some substance in its thickness, for if not, it is merely like a color. And I found in the Mordechai in the first chapter that it requires the thickness of a finger, and this is the wording of the Mordechai: "Our teacher Meir wrote, that what they do to make lechiyin from smeared lime or a tzurrat hapetach—they do well... for we learned in a Mishnah: 'With anything one may make lechiyin.' And smeared lime or gypsum, when one attaches them to the wall with the thickness of a finger, it is much stronger than the thread of a cloak or a reed." Thus far his words. And in Terumat HaDeshen (siman 74) he explained his words, that this requirement of the thickness of a finger applies to lechiyin, and not to the reeds of a tzurrat hapetach, see there. And it is also explained from the Mordechai, that for every lechi we require at least the thickness of the thread of a cloak. And it is simple that those who make lechiyin from lime must ensure that dogs and pigs do not rub themselves there against the wall, for if they remove three tefachim of lime from the side of the ground—it would be pasul. (And it is a great difficulty on the Taz, subsection 4, who wrote that lime is only for a tzurrat hapetach and not for a lechi, see there, while in the Mordechai and Terumat HaDeshen the opposite is explicit).

A lechi that one made from trees of an asherah is kosher, even though a korah is invalid; this is because it requires a measurement of a tefach. However, regarding a lechi, for which even joined fragments are kosher, what does it matter to me that it is from trees of an asherah, for its measurement is considered crushed? And even though there is a height measurement for a lechi as well, namely ten tefachim, nevertheless, since in its thickness it does not require a measurement, it is a minor matter and is permitted (Magen Avraham, subsection 7, in the name of Tosafot 80a). Furthermore, for a lechi, one can join the crushed pieces to the wall (Tosafot ibid.). And one should not ask that an asherah is forbidden for benefit, for it can be said that this is not bodily benefit but rather a mitzvah, and mitzvot were not given for benefit (31a).

Initially, one should place the lechi so that it is visible as a lechi, both to those standing inside within the mavoi and to those standing outside. That is to say, he should place its width toward the length of the mavoi and extend it slightly toward the outside. But if he does not extend it toward the outside, those standing behind the mavoi will not sense that there is a lechi here, for the fact that the lechi exceeds the thickness of the wall is not noticeable at all, and they will think that this is the thickness of the wall; only from the inside is it noticeable, as they see its edge protruding from the wall. And so too, there are times when it is visible from the outside and not from the inside, such as when he extended the entire lechi outside the mavoi, and only its inner edge enters the thickness of the wall, and it appears from the inside as an addition to the length of the wall, while from the outside it is noticeable, since it extends further than the thickness of the wall to the right side, or in the second wall to the left side. But if he did so—it is kosher, for we hold that whether it is visible from the inside and level from the outside, or visible from the outside and level from the inside—it is judged as a lechi. And the Tosafot and the Rosh ruled that "visible from the outside" does not mean what is visible to the sides, but rather that it must be visible to those standing outside opposite the airspace of the mavoi; that is, he extended it outward and placed the inner edge of the lechi at the edge of the thickness of the back of the mavoi. And now, from the inside it is not noticeable at all, but to those standing outside opposite the airspace it is noticeable, for its thickness is not level with the wall and it is a lechi. And there are other ways in this matter, and according to what I have written, so is the primary view.

If he raised it three tefachim from the ground, it is invalid, for the lechi is like a partition, and kids can pass through it. And if he raised it less than three tefachim, it is valid, even though the reed only has seven and a bit, for anything less than three is considered lavud, and it is as if it extends to the ground. And it has already been explained that it must also be within less than three of the wall.

A lechi that stands of its own accord, meaning they did not set it up for the sake of a lechi but it happened to be there of its own accord for some reason—is valid, for a lechi is on account of a partition, and a partition that stands of its own accord is valid, as I wrote in the previous siman. Nevertheless, we require that they rely upon it from the eve of Shabbat, for we have already written that while it is on account of a partition, it is also on account of a marker, and if they do not rely upon it from the eve of Shabbat, there is no marker here at all. However, if there was no other lechi there, they presumably relied upon it from the eve of Shabbat. But when there was another lechi there and it fell on Shabbat, and they come now to rely on this one—it is forbidden. And sometimes it can be that they did not rely upon it even when there was no other lechi, such as if they truly did not carry on the previous Shabbat, for they did not establish it for the sake of a lechi, and therefore it requires explicit reliance from the eve of Shabbat if they wish to carry by means of it. And if they did not explicitly rely, they are forbidden to carry. And one should not ask, if the lechi fell on Shabbat, why do we need another lechi, for do we not hold "since it was permitted, it remains permitted"? For it is not so, as when a partition falls between a reshut hayachid and a reshut harabim or a karmelit, we do not say "since it was permitted, it remains permitted," and therefore when the lechi or the korah falls on Shabbat, they are forbidden from carrying, for this is like the falling of partitions, since the fourth wall remains fully breached to the reshut harabim or to the karmelit, and see siman 374.

A lechi that stands of its own and protrudes into the width of the alleyway, if the protrusion is four amot, even if they relied upon it from the eve of Shabbat—it is not judged as a lechi. The reason is because four amot is the measure of an alleyway, as will be explained, and there is no recognition here that it is a lechi; for even though a lechi is on account of a partition, nevertheless, we also require recognition, as I have written. One requires another lechi to permit this alleyway, and he should place it on the other side opposite this lechi. And if he wishes to place it next to it, he should make it slightly thicker or thinner than it, so that it will be recognizable that it is for the sake of a lechi, and it will not be like adding to the first. In what case are these words said? In an alleyway wider than eight amot. But an alleyway that is only eight amot wide—one does not need another lechi to permit it, even if they did not rely upon it from the eve of Shabbat, but rather it is permitted through "the standing is equal to the breached," meaning that the lechi within it of four amot is like the breach from it until the second wall, and "breached like the standing" is permitted, as I wrote in the previous siman. This applies to a lechi that stands of its own, but when they placed it for the sake of a lechi—it is permitted even when it is four amot in a large alleyway, because it has a reputation that they placed it for the sake of a lechi, and there is recognition for this. And specifically when they placed it for a lechi, but reliance—does not avail for this.

A lechi that extends in its width along the length of the wall of the mavoi, where one placed its edge against the thickness of the wall from the outside, such that its edge does not cover the entire thickness of the wall but only a portion of the thickness of the side of the mavoi's airspace, or a portion of the thickness of the side of the back of the mavoi—according to the opinions explained in section 12, if there are four amot in the width of this lechi, it becomes like a mavoi and departs from the status of a lechi, even though it was placed for the sake of a lechi. And it is not similar to the previous law, for the protruding lechi there is in the width of the mavoi and closes it, therefore when placed for the sake of a lechi it is not judged as a mavoi. But here, regarding a lechi that extends along the length of the mavoi and does not close it, it is more deficient, for even if it was placed for the sake of a lechi it is judged as a mavoi and not as a lechi. But less than four amot, it is judged as a lechi. (Tosafot 5a) And one may only use until its inner edge, for from there onwards it has no wall opposite it, and when it is four amot there is no lechi here, and it is forbidden to use the entire mavoi.

There is another rectification for a mavoi, that he should place a kora of a tefach upon it. And our sages, of blessed memory, said (12b): "A lechi is on account of a partition, and a kora is on account of a conspicuous mark." Now, this is understood regarding a kora, that it has no status of a partition at all, and also "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes" does not apply to it, since its width is not four, and any partition whose ceiling is less than four—we do not say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." But that which they said, "a lechi is on account of a partition," is not understood; what kind of partition is a thin reed like the thread of a cloak? For even if the breached part is greater than the standing part, it nullifies the partition, all the more so a thin reed. And I found in the Tosafot Yeshanim (ibid.) and this is his wording: "And if you say, how could it enter your mind that a lechi is on account of a partition, for the Merciful One taught Moshe that it should not be breached in its majority? And perhaps regarding a third or fourth partition He did not teach him." Thus far his words, and it is not understood at all. And it seems to my humble opinion, that according to what we wrote in the previous siman, section 23, that we calculate "breached like standing" in total for all the partitions, see there, it works out well. And that is, that from the Torah one requires three partitions, and in them, in total, it must be "breached like standing." However, a small amount is required in each partition, for when it is entirely open, it is not in the category of a partition. Therefore they said there: "A mavoi that is not fit for shittuf," meaning open on both sides, (Rashi) "its rectification is with a lechi; one who throws into it is liable, for a lechi is on account of a partition." And that is because in total the standing part will be the majority, and even if there are some breaches in the side partitions—it will be "breached like standing," and if in truth it will be more, according to the calculation of three partitions, it is not a reshut hayachid. And perhaps this is the intent of the Tosafot Yeshanim, that regarding a third or fourth partition He did not teach him, for this reason of the total calculation. Therefore, also regarding the fourth wall, where the sages required a lechi or kora for a conspicuous mark, the essence of the lechi is for a conspicuous mark like the kora. Only that which they said, "a lechi is on account of a partition," they are speaking the truth, for in a mavoi open on both sides, it makes it a reshut hayachid. And according to this, that which the poskim said works out well, that always a lechi is on account of a partition, and nevertheless some conspicuous mark is required. And seemingly it is not understood, and some have found difficulty with this, but according to what I wrote, the matters are clear with the help of Heaven.

The kora must be placed in order to permit the mavoi. But if it was not made for the purpose of permission, even if they relied upon it from the eve of Shabbat—it is invalid. And it is not similar to a lechi, for its essence is like a partition, but a kora, which is nothing but a recognition alone—requires a proper recognition, that they make it for the purpose of permitting the mavoi, and if not—this is not a complete recognition. And this kora requires a width of a tefach, and therefore if he made it from trees of an asherah—it is invalid, for its measurement is considered crushed, since it stands to be burned, and it is not similar to a lechi which has no measurement for its width.

The measurement of the kora—its width is a tefach and its thickness is any amount, provided that it is strong enough to support an ariach, which is half a brick of three tefachim, along the entire length of the kora, so that it resembles the setting of a building upon it. (Rashi 13b) And they were lenient regarding the capacity to support an ariach, which is the most minimal building, as is evident at the beginning of Bava Batra; see there. And if the kora is four tefachim wide—it does not need to have the strength to support an ariach. And the reason appears to be because when it is four wide, we say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes," and it is a complete mechitzah. And it appears to me, that with a width of four it does not need to be made for the purpose of permit, and perhaps even placement from Erev Shabbat is not required, as it is a complete mechitzah. Nevertheless, placement appears to be required, for even a lechi is on account of a mechitzah, and despite this it was explained in section 14 that it requires placement from Erev Shabbat.

If it is difficult to place the korah, one may place it on other supports; that is, one may place it on pegs protruding from the wall, even though they are not a tefach in width. This is provided that their length is not three, but rather less than three, for it is considered lavud, and it is as if it is placed upon the walls; for if it were not so, it would have no connection to the walls. And the supports do not need to be so sturdy that they are capable of supporting the korah and the bricks, but rather only enough to support the korah alone, for in truth one does not build upon it, but rather we required the korah itself for this purpose, and this has no connection to the supports of the korah. And some say that they must be fit to support the korah and the bricks, for if not so, the korah itself does not resemble a permanent structure. And if the korah was made of straw or of reeds—it is invalid, (Tur) even though they can support a brick, nevertheless since they are soft and thin, they can be crushed. (Taz subsection 11; and the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 16 that regarding the support of bricks, they may place less than three on each wall, see there, and it is simple)

And know, that even though we have validated placing the kora upon supports, nevertheless, this is only when it is within the partitions of the walls. However, one may not set up supports outside near the mavoi and place it upon them, even though it is adjacent at its other edge to the walls of the mavoi, for we require that the kora be within the walls of the mavoi, and if not, this is not a recognizable mark for the mavoi. And it is not similar to a lechi that extends from the side of a mavoi which is valid, because a lechi is always a recognizable mark that it is to permit the mavoi, but a kora is not a recognizable mark except when it is within the space of the mavoi, for it is not the way of any ceiling to be placed except upon the walls. (Ritva 8b) Furthermore, regarding the lechi, the recognizable mark is at the time of walking, and everyone sees it, but regarding the kora, the recognizable mark is only when they lift their heads to look, and it is not the way to lift the head during the course of one's walking; rather, when they are standing in the mavoi, it may happen that one lifts his head and looks, therefore we require that the recognizable mark be within the walls of the mavoi.

If the kora was round, it must have a circumference of three tefachim, for then it has a width of a tefach. And even though the calculation is not exact according to the mathematicians (Tosafot Eruvin 14a, s.v. "ve-ha-ika"), nevertheless, thus the Torah decreed to measure. And we learn it from the Sea of Solomon (ibid.), as it is written: "ten from its brim to its brim, and a line of thirty cubits did encircle it round about" (I Kings 7). And this is what they asked in the Gemara: from where are these matters derived? And it is difficult: let us bring a string and measure! Rather, this itself is what is being asked: but the calculation is not precise? And it answers that the Torah commanded so, and the difficulty of Tosafot there is answered; and see what I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 30, section 13.

If the beam was curved and its curvature protrudes outside the mavoi, or its curvature rises above twenty amot, or is lower than ten tefachim—for both are invalid in a mavoi as will be explained—we view it as if the curvature were removed, and if there is not three [tefachim] between one and the other, it is valid, for we say lavud; and if not, it is invalid. (See Rashi 8b: end of the heading starting "According to the one who permits" who wrote: "And here it is not an actual partition to permit by means of lavud." Thus far his words. And this is outside the walls, but within the walls, we say many lavuds regarding a beam. And so it is explicitly stated in Tosafot 9a: end of the heading starting "That there is not" see there and examine carefully).

If the kora is distant from the walls by less than three — it is kosher (Magen Avraham subsection 17) because of lavud, since it is within the walls. And likewise, if it was extending from this wall and does not touch the second wall by less than three — it is kosher, such as when it stands on pillars. And likewise, if one kora extends from this wall and one from the wall opposite it and they met each other in the middle of the mavoi, but did not completely reach each other, if there is not three between them — it is kosher. If there is three between them — it is pasul.

Initially, there must be a single kora with a width of a tefach. Nevertheless, if one placed two korot one next to the other, each half a tefach wide, since between the two of them they are sufficient to support a brick across its width—meaning even if they are slightly distant from one another, as long as there are not three tefachim between them—one does not need to bring another kora. And if not, one must bring another kora, or place them near each other within three tefachim, provided they are strong enough to support a brick. But some say that here we do not follow the measurement of lavud, for we require the measurement of a kora, meaning they must be near each other within a tefach, which is the measurement of a kora. And if they are distant from each other more than a tefach, they are invalid, for there is no kora here. Furthermore, even if there were many such korot near each other more than a tefach apart, even though together they are four tefachim or more, nevertheless it is nothing, for we do not have a kora upon which to place a brick (see Magen Avraham, subsection 10).

According to the first opinion, which validates two beams when they are not separated by three [handbreadths] from one another, even if they are not placed level with one another, but rather one is above and one is below, if there are not three tefachim between them—neither in height nor in breadth—we view the upper one as if it is below and the lower one as if it is above. That is to say, that less than three is considered lavud, and therefore we view it as if this one descended to that one or this one ascended to that one, provided that the upper one is not above twenty amot and the lower one is not below ten tefachim. And the "there are those who say" in the previous section rules this invalid as well, and they only validate with the measure of a tefach. (And this is the opinion of the Tur, that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, 14, regarding this matter of "we view," see there).

If one spread a mat over the beam and it does not reach the ground, if the mat is not three tefachim higher than the ground, the מבוי is valid. For even though there is no beam here, since he covered it and there is no recognition, nevertheless there is a partition of the mat here. But if it was three higher than the ground, the מבוי is invalid, for there is neither a beam nor a partition here, as a partition that is three higher than the ground is invalid. And even if it is not higher than the ground by three, one must ensure that it does not sway in the wind.

Even though there is no measure for the thickness of the kora, nevertheless, if its thickness is ten tefachim—the Rashba, of blessed memory, disqualified it, for the reason that since it has the measure of a mechitzah, the law of a kora is nullified from it, just as when one spreads a mat over it. And there is no mechitzah here, for it is not within three [tefachim] adjacent to the ground. And the Rosh, of blessed memory, disagrees with him, for it is not similar to a mat, which is covered. But when it is very drawn out—the name kora is not nullified from it because of its size. And know that this was brought by the Rosh in the first chapter (siman 18), the ruling of the Rashba, and he disagreed with him as I have written; however, there it is written that it is drawn out lower than ten, see there, and it is not understood, for if it is because of a mechitzah, ten is sufficient. (And the Korban Netanel likewise questioned this). And in my humble opinion it appears that it is not exact, and many times the poskim wrote such expressions regarding three tefachim and regarding ten tefachim, and the intention is that it is not exactly ten, for because of an exact measure the Rashba would not disqualify it, because there is an expanded measurement and there is an exact measurement, as will be explained.

But there is one who explained and said that the intention is even if the bottom edge is lower than ten from the ground, and any kora placed lower than ten is invalid, yet here—it is valid, for one may disregard the bottom portion. (Turei Zahav, subsection 13). And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, at the end of section 24 shall also be explained, where he wrote: "But if he placed a wide kora and it extends slightly below ten—it is valid," for the intention is below ten from the ground. And this is not the matter at all for this law, as is understood; rather, it is certainly as I have written, that the intention refers to the height of the kora being ten tefachim, the measurement of a mechitza. (And so it appears from the Bach and from the Magen Avraham, subsection 20).

And even regarding the essence of this law, when the crossbeam extends until below ten from the ground—which they validated—it appears in my humble opinion that it is not so. And the proof is from that which we say at the beginning of Sukkah (4a): If it was ten tefachim high, and palm-fronds were descending into the ten, Abaye thought to validate it, just as with a height above twenty, where it is valid in such a case. And Rava said to him: This is a foul dwelling, and a person does not dwell in a foul dwelling, and so we maintain later in siman 633, see there; it follows that below we require ten entirely clear tefachim. And one should not distinguish between a sukkah and a mavoi regarding this matter, for in a mavoi as well one requires proper passage, just as in a sukkah a proper dwelling. (And therefore, even though the Taz there validates and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, nevertheless in my humble opinion—it is invalid. And I found that the Even HaEzer also rejected the words of the Taz, and the Gra interpreted like the Taz and rejected the words of the Rosh).

If one drove two curved pegs into the two walls of the alleyway from the inside, and their curvature also inclines toward the interior of the alleyway, and he placed the kora upon them, and the pegs do not have a width of a tefach—which is the measurement for a kora to be considered a kora in their own right—if they are not higher than the walls of the alleyway by three, and also their curved inclination is not three, such that the kora is not separated from the walls by three either in length or in height, it is kosher. For we view them as if they extend until the walls of the alleyway and as if they are lowered until the walls of the alleyway. More than three, it is pasul. And there is a novelty in this law, for we apply two types of labud at once: labud in length, and "chabut rami" in its height. And even though in Sukkah (22a) we say regarding the matter of sukkah and regarding the matter of tumah that with a length of a tefach we say "chabut rami" even with more than three, and so was the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai stated, nevertheless here regarding an alleyway we do not say so. For we require that the kora be within the walls of the alleyway, and when it is separated by three even in height, it is not within the walls of the alleyway. (Tosafot 9a, s.v. "She-ein", and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham, subsection 21)

Know, that in the measurements of tefachim and amot there are compressed measurements and expanded measurements, and there is a difference between them of half a finger for every amah (ibid. subsection 22). This is the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 17: "The finger with which we measure everywhere is the width of the thumb of the hand, and the tefach is four fingers. And every amah mentioned everywhere, whether regarding Shabbat or regarding sukkah and kilayim—it is an amah of six tefachim. And sometimes we measure with an amah of six tefachim pressed against each other, and sometimes we measure with an amah of six smiling and expanded ones, and both this and that are to be stringent. How so? The length of a mavoi is four expanded amot, and its height is twenty compressed amot. The width of a breach is ten compressed amot, and similarly regarding the matters of sukkah and kilayim." Thus far his words. And according to this, in the techum Shabbat which is two thousand amot, there would be a difference of one thousand fingers which are two hundred and fifty tefachim, close to forty-two amot. And behold, the Rambam mentioned that everywhere it is so, and he did not need to mention it regarding techumin. But the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in section 26 here wrote to follow the stringency, and regarding techumin they did not mention this at all. And more than this is puzzling, for later in siman 396 the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote regarding the four amot that are given to every person—we give him expanded ones, and why do we not follow the stringency to give him only compressed ones? This requires further study.

And behold, the author of the Maor, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch ruled like the Rambam; but the Rashba (in Avodat HaKodesh) and the Ritva ruled that all amot in shaatnez are always expansive, and all amot in sukkah and mavoi are always constricted, because in most laws of shaatnez, expansion is a stringency, and in sukkah and mavoi, constriction is mostly a stringency. Therefore, we are not concerned if even in a minority of laws in shaatnez expansion results in a leniency, or in a minority of the laws of sukkah and mavoi constriction results in a leniency—we are not concerned by it. This also appears to be the view of Rashi at the beginning of Eruvin (3b, s.v. "hallalu"); see there. The Rif, of blessed memory, omitted this entirely, and the Maor expressed wonder at him, while the Ramban did not respond at all. Furthermore, I do not know: it is well and good regarding shaatnez and sukkah, which are from the Torah, that we follow the stringency; but regarding mavoi, which is rabbinic, in every place we follow the lenient path in a rabbinic doubt, as is common in the Shas and the poskekim, that a doubt in rabbinic matters is resolved leniently. And it is obvious that the reason we follow one way here and another way there is because of the doubt; for if it entered your mind that it was told to Moses at Sinai as "expansive" or "constricted," we would not have the authority to follow the opposite even for a stringency. Rather, it is certain that it was stated generally, and if so, it is a rabbinic doubt and should be lenient; this requires further study.

And what appears to my humble opinion in this matter is that there is no doubt here at all, and it was told to Moses at Sinai that both "expanded" and "contracted" measurements are valid in every place. And the reason is that the Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and the measurements of all human beings cannot be identical, for there is a healthy person who presses his fingers together tightly, and the measurement is "contracted," and there is a weak person who cannot press them so much, and the measurement is "expanded," and regarding such matters it is said that "it is impossible to be exact." And certainly every person must measure with his own, and according to his habit, and certainly when a person comes to measure a place where he will have the ability to walk—he measures with an "expanded" measure for his own benefit. Therefore, the four amot that the Torah gave to every person on Shabbat to carry therein, as written in siman 349 from the verse "remain every man in his place," he would presumably measure them "expanded." Therefore, they ruled in siman 396 that these are "expanded." And also the techum that a person measures, so that he will have the ability to walk—he measures "expanded," and therefore they did not mention there that they should be "contracted." However, in a mavoi, which is a walkway for the public, and it is impossible to establish it based on the measurement of an individual, and also there is no loss in this, the sages said that we should measure stringently, because certainly there are people for whom this is their measurement, and it is impossible to be lenient for these because of the others; rather, we should be stringent for these because of those. And only the Rambam and his faction hold that one must be precise in every law individually, and the Rashbam and his faction hold that one should follow the majority of the laws. And so too regarding sukkah and kilayim, where the matter also concerns many others, whether regarding the prohibition of kilayim or the fulfillment of the mitzvah of sukkah, we are forced to be stringent for these because of the others, for their primary measurement is such. Therefore, the Rif omitted this entirely; because according to the essential law, either way it is a proper measurement, he did not see fit to bring it at all. (So it appears to my humble opinion)

And so it appears in my humble opinion, that in one maboi, even according to the Rambam, one should not perform the measurement except in one manner, either contracted or expanded. And even though from the wording of the Rambam it is slightly implied that we must follow the stringency in every specific law, perhaps the intention of the Rambam refers to separate maboiot, because it is not logical to say in one maboi sometimes this way and sometimes that way. However, since we explained that both measurements are true, for the halacha one could say that even in one maboi it is so, and it requires further study. (And to the Gara"a it was obvious that this is due to a doubt, and he wrote that in one maboi it is in one manner, and he brought a proof from Tosafot 5a, starting with the words "And if," see there. And there is no proof from Tosafot, for they presumably hold like Rashi and the Rashba, that in a maboi and a sukkah they are all contracted as I wrote, but according to his words that it is a doubt, it is certainly so, but according to our words it requires investigation, and examine this well).

It is explained from the Shas and the poskim that a mavoi must have its length greater than its width, and a chatzer must be square. A mavoi whose length is equal to its width has the law of a chatzer, and a chatzer whose length is greater than its width is judged as a mavoi. This is the wording of the Gemara: (12b) "If its length is greater than its width, it is a mavoi... and if not, it is a chatzer," see there. And the reason seems to me to be that the chatzer belongs to one person, and for the most part every chatzer is square, and so are most buildings. But the mavoi, which runs along the front of the chatzerot, must of necessity be very long, and the width toward the street will not allow them to expand much, as our eyes see, that every street's length is much greater than its width. And therefore they also said that a mavoi must have its length no less than four amot. (5a, according to Abaye, and such is the halacha). And regarding a chatzer we have not found this measure, and the reason is also that a chatzer, which belongs to an individual, he makes small or large as he wishes, which is not the case with a mavoi, which is for the public; if it does not have at least four amot, it does not have the capacity for public passage. And this is regarding the length, but regarding the width, it can be even less, until four tefachim or until three, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Among the conditions of a mavoi that is permitted by a lechi or a korah, is that the walls must not be lower than ten tefachim, and that the width of the fourth open side must not be more than ten amot, and its length must not be less than four amot. And regarding its height, if they rendered it fit with a lechi—there is no measure for its height, for even if the walls are high as the heavens, what do we care, since the permit and the recognition are down on the ground. However, if they rendered it fit with a korah—the space under the korah must not be more than twenty amot, and regarding this we learned at the beginning of our tractate: "A mavoi that is higher than twenty amot is invalid," for since the recognition is the korah which is above, the sages of blessed memory received a tradition that higher than twenty amot the eye does not rule over it, just as with a sukkah. And we conclude in the Gemara (Eruvin 3a) that we learned regarding the space of the mavoi, meaning that the korah can be at the end of the twenty amot and above, for only in the space must there not be more than twenty amot. And if one of the conditions is missing, it has no permit with a lechi or a korah but rather with a tzurat hapetach, for a tzurat hapetach is effective for everything, as it is almost like a complete partition. (And this is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 17, that even for that which is lower than ten tefachim a tzurat hapetach is effective. However, the Rashba disagrees on this, for less than ten it does not have the status of a partition; see there in the Maggid Mishneh. And in my humble opinion it seems that even the Rambam admits that the tzurat hapetach must be at a height of ten, and only regarding the partitions from the side we are not concerned if they are not ten tefachim high, and according to this it can be said that the Rambam and the Rashba did not disagree; and delve into this.)

Our sages, of blessed memory, said at the beginning of our tractate (ibid.), that a kora higher than twenty amot, if he made an amlatra for it—which is to say drawings and engravings through which everyone will look at it—it is kosher. For since the disqualification is as we have written, that there is no recognition above twenty amot, however, when there are drawings, there is recognition. And it appears that specifically prominent drawings are required, such as those of wood and the like, for the Heikhal had amlatraot, as we learned in the third chapter (mishna 7) of Middot, and Rashi explained they were of wood; see there. And it says in the Shulchan Aruch, section 26, that a drawing of lime [is sufficient]; see there. In my humble opinion, it is not so, for behold, in the Gemara there it is explicitly stated so, saying: "What is an amlatra? One said nests of birds, and one said a cedar beam"; see there. And in the Aruch he wrote that in the Greek language a beam is an amlatra. And also what he wrote there, that even a drawing on the wall is effective—I do not know from where he has this. (And this is some gloss in the Shulchan Aruch and it is not from our teacher, the Rema; and see Maggid Mishneh chapter 17 halacha 15 what he wrote in the name of the Rashba, and it requires further study, and examine it well).

There is another remedy: to raise the area beneath the kora so that there is no more than twenty amot from there to the kora. This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 17, law 16: "If its height was more than twenty, and he comes to diminish it with a kora that he places below, it must be a tefach in its width like a kora." Thus far his words. For since the recognition must be beneath the kora, it is sufficient to raise it only there, so that one who stands upon it will see the kora. And from the wording of the Rambam it appears that specifically a kora is required below, and similar to this is the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, who wrote: "And if it was higher than twenty and he built a structure beneath the kora, a width of a tefach is sufficient." Thus far their words. And they wrote the term "structure." And there is one who wrote that the same law applies to earth, but one must be careful that when it is trodden upon by feet it does not diminish from the required measure. (Magen Avraham, subsection 24) And it is true that Rashi, of blessed memory, explained thus in the Gemara (Eruvin 4b, s.v. "and he comes to diminish it to make a structure or earth"), but from their wording it appears specifically a kora of wood or stone. And the reason is because earth will certainly be diminished, and they said at the beginning of our tractate that many people rely on one another and do not remember; see there. But if it is not ten high, and he hollows out the ground to complete it to ten—he must hollow out four amot along the length of the mavoi across its entire width. And here a tefach is not sufficient, since these are not walls at all, we require the measure of walls like the length of a valid mavoi. (Rashi 5a.) And it appears that even if he distanced the hollow from the wall by less than three tefachim—it is valid, just as we say at the beginning of Sukkah regarding a sukkah; see there.

An alleyway is not permitted by means of a lechi or a korah until there are houses and courtyards open into it: two courtyards to the alleyway, and two houses to each courtyard. The reason is that since they were lenient regarding an alleyway as opposed to a courtyard—that one lechi or a korah would suffice—it was because of the multitude of residents, and the usage therein is minimal and does not require such fencing, as was written in section 2. Therefore, if there are not two courtyards and two houses to a courtyard, there is no multitude of residents, and it is similar to a courtyard. (Magen Avraham, subsection 25, in the name of the Rashba). And also, let there not be in any of these openings of the courtyards and the houses less than four tefachim, for less than four tefachim is not considered at all; and likewise, specifically that the people dwelling there must be required to make an eruv, such as when they eat there, for we hold that the place of eating causes the eruv, as will be explained in siman 370. For even if one house belonged to a father and the second to a son, and the son receives a stipend from the father, if he eats by himself, they require an eruv when the father eats in his house and the son in the second house. All this is so that there will be a multitude of residents with a multitude of usages, and then the usages in the alleyway will be diminished. Therefore, some require that the eruv must be specifically by way of the alleyway, meaning when the courtyards are not open to one another; for if they are open to one another, they would make an eruv together by way of the courtyards without the alleyway, and they would all be like one house and one courtyard. The Rosh, the Tur, and the Mordechai disagree on this, and they hold that even if they are open to one another and they make an eruv by way of the courtyards, it is permitted, for this is also called a commotion of residents. And in this, everyone agrees that we do not specifically require Israelites in the two courtyards and the two houses of each courtyard, for even if one side is non-Jews and one side is Israelites, it is permitted, for the usages exist. And if there are no houses and courtyards open into it, its law is like a courtyard, and it requires a post of four [tefachim] or two posts; and likewise if one of all the conditions that were explained previously is missing.

However, a mavoi that does not have a width of three tefachim at its entrance, even though its interior is very wide but it narrows at the fourth wall until there is not even a width of three tefachim at the entrance—it does not require any permit, for it is not considered an open side at all, but rather a closed one. And some say that up to four tefachim nothing is required, and this is the opinion of the Ra'avad, the Rosh, and the Tur, and the first opinion is the opinion of the Rambam. And it is simple that also in a chatzer the law is so according to the first opinion, but according to the "some say," a mavoi is different from a chatzer, and in a chatzer even though it does not have four tefachim it requires rectification, for so it implies explicitly in the Gemara. (12a, and so wrote the P'nei Yehoshua)

The definition of a courtyard has already been explained, that its length should be like its width. But if its length is greater than its width, it is treated like a mavoi, and is permitted with a lechi or a korah; so ruled the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 27, for so it is clarified from the Gemara as I have written. And there is a question regarding this: how can it be judged as a mavoi, given that there are no houses and courtyards open into it? Our teacher, the Rema, answered: since it is not close to the reshut harabim but rather opens to a mavoi, and the mavoi opens to the reshut harabim. Thus far his words. That is to say, that which they were stringent regarding a mavoi—that if houses and courtyards are not open into it, it is not permitted with a lechi and korah—this is because it is adjacent to the reshut harabim. But a courtyard judged as a mavoi, since it is not adjacent to the reshut harabim, we were not stringent regarding it in this detail of houses and courtyards. (And so wrote the Tosafot 12b at the end of the heading starting "And houses," and this is his wording: "Because a mavoi is closer to the reshut harabim than a courtyard, it requires houses and courtyards." Thus far his words. That is to say, even though in all other details we were more stringent regarding a courtyard, as I wrote in section 2, nevertheless in this detail it is not so. And there is no measure for its length being greater than its width, for even slightly longer is called greater than its width. And know that the Maggid Mishneh in chapter 17, halacha 8, brought a dispute regarding its width being greater than its length, whether it is like a mavoi or like a courtyard, and from the Gemara 7a it appears explicitly that it is all one, and see Tosefet Shabbat sub-section 62, and "length" is called the path of its entry, and delve into this.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 26: "And some say that it is the practice nowadays to repair all alleys with a tzurat hapetach, for all our alleys have the status of courtyard. And the common custom in all these lands is to repair by means of a rope tied across the width of the alley. And the law of this rope is not that of a korah, for its width is not a tefach, and it is only effective by reason of a tzurat hapetach, for it is effective above even with a reed. Therefore, one must be careful to place under the rope two poles ten tefachim high positioned directly under the rope, and then it is effective even in an open alley by the law of a tzurat hapetach, or even in a courtyard, and in any place where a tzurat hapetach is effective, as I wrote above at the end of siman 362." Thus far his words.

And behold, it is hidden from us what the nature of the streets was in the time of our teacher, the Rema, and several generations prior, for even in their time it was not as in the time of the Shas. Therefore, they wrote that they do not have the law of a mavoi, and they were stringent regarding it like a chatzer and even more than a chatzer, since the chatzerot are directly adjacent to the reshut harabim, and they were stringent to make a tzurrat hapetach. And there is one who wrote that all the cities in their time were surrounded by a wall, and it was settled and subsequently enclosed. According to this, if the opening is not ten amot wide or more - two strips are sufficient like a chatzer. And there are those who wrote that even if they are not surrounded by a wall - their law is like a chatzer, and nevertheless they require a tzurrat hapetach (see Magen Avraham subsection 27) even in less than ten.

Behold, in ancient times the Jews lived in a separate part of the city, and it was called the street of the Jews, as it is until today in the country of Morocco. But now in our countries, we are scattered throughout the entire city together with them, and we do not have mavoot but rather houses and courtyard, and from the courtyards they exit to the reshut harabim. And in the country of Lithuania there are houses by the hundreds and thousands that have no courtyard at all, and they exit from their houses to the reshut harabim. And most of our streets, their width is much more than ten amot, and if so, it is necessary to make tzurat hapetach in all the corners. And there are places in every city where the small street at the edge of the city does not have ten amot, and it requires two pasin, for we do not have a mavoi for several reasons that have been explained, and we make tzurat hapetach in all the corners of the city, and we stand them exactly at the edge of the city, and so that there will not be a vacancy from the place of the tzurat hapetach until the houses or the fences of more than ten amot, and even if it is less than ten, nevertheless it requires two pasin. And behold, the reed of the tzurat hapetach counts as a pas, and one should stand a second pas opposite it near the houses, for since it is at the edge of the city—it is not included in the general area of the city that the tzurat hapetach surrounds. And so in all the edges of the city in a place where there is a breach to the outside of the city less than or more than ten amot—two pasin are sufficient, and where it is more than ten amot—it requires a tzurat hapetach. And the measure of ten amot according to the measurement of our country Russia is two and a half sazhenes. And this is all based on the foundation that we do not have a complete reshut harabim, as we have elaborated on this in siman 345, see there. (According to the Magen Avraham in subsection 27, even in less than ten it requires a tzurat hapetach, but we do not practice so, for we judge it as a courtyard even for leniency, and see what I wrote below in siman 365, section 6.)

And this has already been explained, that in a tzurat hapetach, the reed that is on top of them does not need to touch the reeds that are at its sides. Therefore, if certain protrusions extend from walls that are ten tefachim high from the ground, and they are not three tefachim high from the ground, one can rely on them for the reeds of the tzurat hapetach from here and from there, and likewise for pasim in less than ten amot as I have written. And all the more so the reeds with which they fence gardens, for they are good for pasim and for the sides of a tzurat hapetach; and the upper reed should be stretched exactly aligned with the protrusions or exactly aligned with the reeds, so that it shall not be from the side. And there is one who says that one must be careful when stretching the upper reed over the roof of a certain building, and stretching it aligned with the side reeds that he placed at the sides of the wall, that the protrusion of the roof called "kopiz" should not extend beneath the upper reed, for if so, the protrusion separates between the upper one and the sides. (Taz, subsection 19) And there is one who disagrees with this and brings proof from an arch, where the curve separates between the upper part and the sides and nevertheless it is permitted, as is proven in the Gemara (11b); and from this it is proven that the separation does not cause any harm. (Tosefot Shabbat, subsection 64) And although one could distinguish that this is all in one building, but here where the roof is another building it constitutes a separation, nevertheless, from where do we have [the authority] to distinguish thus. And one who wishes to fulfill the first opinion should make a hole in the protrusion aligned with the reeds that are at the sides, so that they will be aligned under the upper one without separation. (Taz, ibid.) And we have already written at the end of siman 362 that there is one who forbids if the side reeds are three tefachim distant from the wall, just as in a lechi which is invalid in such a case, and we explained there that it is not so. (And also the Tosefot Shabbat in this siman, subsection 10, disagrees with the Tevuot Shor who was stringent in this, see there.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 29: "An alleyway whose one side ends at the sea and its other side ends at a public refuse heap—it requires nothing, for a public refuse heap is not likely to be cleared away, and we do not fear that the sea might cast up a sandbar." Thus far his words, for such is the way of the sea, that it recedes and becomes land and the partitions are nullified. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "For there are those who disagree and hold that we do fear that the sea might cast up a sandbar, and there is no partition here." Thus far his words. However, if there still remains a slope that rises ten handbreadths within four cubits at the place that was the seashore—it is obvious that this itself constitutes a partition. (Taz, end of subsection 20) And there is one who forbids even in such a case, on the grounds that they might carry until the seashore as they were accustomed, and there it is considered a karmelit even if there are partitions from the sea, because they were not enclosed for habitation; therefore, even a tzurath hapethach is not effective for the place that was previously the seashore, but rather a complete partition, on the grounds that they might carry further. (Magen Avraham, subsection 31) And it is an excessive stringency, and specifically regarding the sea do we fear a sandbar and not regarding rivers, (ibid.) and we only require that the riverbank be literally adjacent to the head of the alleyway. And if it is far from there, that breach requires a rectification. If it is less than ten—strips are sufficient, and in more than ten—it requires a tzurath hapethach. (ibid.) And it is simple that rivers whose way is to dry up in the summer—it is forbidden, (ibid.) and if the shore rises ten within four—it is permitted as I have written, and when there are bridges they require a tzurath hapethach when they are more than ten, and in less, two strips are sufficient.

And know, that rivers in the winter months when they freeze—certainly the mechitzah is nullified, for behold, people walk there as if on land. (ibid.) And there is one who wishes to forbid even in the summer months, because of the freezing that occurs in the winter months, (Taz ibid.) and those who disagree on this are many, and even in the winter there are those who wish to permit. But the essence of the law is—that in the winter it is forbidden and in the summer it is permitted. And in the winter, not only is it forbidden due to the nullification of the mechitzah, for even if we were to say that this is not a nullification of the mechitzah, since it is a path for the many, we say "the many come and nullify the mechitzah," for even though in the Gemara (22b) it is explained that the Rabbis do not hold "the many come and nullify the mechitzah," our teachers the authors of the Tosafot already wrote there, (end of the heading starting with "Dilma") that regarding a mechitzah made by the hands of Heaven, even the Rabbis admit that we say "the many come and nullify the mechitzah," see there. And if it is difficult, for if so, how do we consider the sea a mechitzah, behold ships pass through it, and there is one who says that in truth it deals with a place where ships do not pass, (Magen Avraham subsection 30) and this is a clear forced explanation. Rather the reason is, that ships do not nullify the mechitzah and it is not similar to the walking of the many. (The Rash Alion in Responsa Knesset Yechezkel siman 2, and so wrote the Magen Avraham himself in siman 345 subsection 14). And there are some of the great ones who said that it was not the intention of the Tosafot to say that regarding a mechitzah made by the hands of Heaven even the Rabbis admit that we say "the many come and nullify the mechitzah," for it is explicitly proven there in the Gemara that even regarding a mechitzah by the hands of Heaven we do not say "the many come etc.," (for behold it asks there regarding a mound), rather the intention of the Tosafot is to say that this is not a complete mechitzah regarding more than two se'ah, for this is not called "enclosed for dwelling." (Knesset Yechezkel ibid. and the Rash Alion ibid.) And there is one who says that when its use is not convenient, we do not say "the many come and nullify the mechitzah," and therefore regarding the mound that gathers there in the Gemara we do not say this for this reason. (The Rash Alion ibid. and see Chatam Sofer siman 189).

Furthermore, it appears in my humble opinion that even if we take the words of the Tosafot according to their plain meaning, that regarding a partition made by the hands of Heaven we say "the many come and nullify the partition," nevertheless regarding a single partition they concede that we do not say so. For this is explained from their earlier words (22a, s.v. "Kashya") where they wrote even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds "the many come and nullify partitions" even regarding partitions made by the hands of man. This is his wording: "Alternatively, even if he holds three partitions are required by Torah law—the many do not come and nullify the third partition, since there are two complete partitions." Thus far his words. Behold, they wrote this even according to Rabbi Yehuda, and all the more so according to the Rabbanan. And there is further proof from the words of the Baal HaMaor there, who wrote, and this is his wording: "Rabbi Yochanan holds like Rabbi Yehuda, that the many come and nullify the partition, and two partitions are required by Torah law… because there are not even two partitions, since the many break through lengthwise and crosswise, and there was not even one partition that the many were not breaking through." Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that even according to Rabbi Yehuda, were there one partition that the many do not break through, we would not say "the many come and nullify the partitions," and all the more so according to the Rabbanan. (And with this, that which they questioned the Tosafot from a gathered mound is settled; and examine this carefully.)

It appears to my humble opinion that only in a place open to a reshut harabim do we say "the many come and nullify the partition," and not in a place open to a karmelit. And since we hold in this time that we do not have a reshut harabim, therefore we also have no concern of "the many come and nullify the partition." And there is a proof from the words of our teacher Yehonatan, who wrote there on the Mishnah regarding the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning the strips of wood for wells, that Rabbi Yehuda holds they come etc. and the Rabbis hold they do not come etc. This is his wording: "And the Sages say it is not necessary, meaning that the many do not come and nullify the status of the four partitions of the strips of wood for wells… for if not for the strips of wood, the Rabbis would admit that the many nullify a partition, as we see in the dispute above, regarding one who has two houses on two sides of a reshut harabim etc." Thus far his words. Behold, he explains that the reason of the Rabbis regarding two houses on two sides of a reshut harabim, which they forbid, is due to the reason of "the many come and nullify the partitions." And behold, in the first chapter (6a) the Sages taught: How do we establish an eruv for a path of a reshut harabim? One makes a tzurath hapetach from here etc. And it asks: Can a reshut harabim be merged with an eruv? But was it not taught: One who has two houses on two sides of a reshut harabim… they may not establish an eruv for a reshut harabim in this manner. And it concludes: How do we establish an eruv for alleyways that open into a reshut harabim? Behold, it is explicit that as long as it is not a complete reshut harabim, even if they open into a reshut harabim, we establish an eruv by means of a tzurath hapetach, a lechi, and a korah. And according to our teacher Yehonatan, that the reason of the Rabbis is because the many nullify partitions, nevertheless in alleyways that are open, the many do not come and nullify the partitions, and certainly so in a complete karmelit. And it is true that the Tosafot do not explain according to his explanation in that case of two houses, but rather because of the three partitions of Torah law; however, according to his words the law is certainly so, and we have not found those who disagree with him on this specific point. And so too from the essence of the sugya there (22b) it is explicitly clarified that this concern only exists in a reshut harabim and not in a karmelit. (And we have a proof from the Yerushalmi, first chapter, halacha 1, that regarding a single partition we do not say the many come etc., as it says there: "And this alleyway of Rabbi Chanin does not require a tzurath hapetach, for it is like a slope of ten handbreadths within three. They enacted a remedy for it, in order to permit the houses below it" Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that they permitted this mound, even though there was passage for the many, and this is because of the status of a single partition. And the commentators were pressed there, and examine it closely) (And from the Mahari there is no proof at all, for wherever there is a tzurath hapetach we do not say the many come and nullify etc.).

A mavoi where one side is long and one side is short, even if the long side does not exceed the short side by four amot, which is the measure of a mavoi, nevertheless, one may not place the kora on the long side except opposite the short side. And one may not place the kora diagonally, so as to use up to its extension here and up to its extension there, for behold, the kora is for the purpose of a recognizable sign, and diagonally it is not a recognizable sign; and one who sees the residents of the mavoi extending on the second side beyond the point opposite the short wall will say that it is permitted to use the public domain or a karmelit, because this excess does not appear to be part of the mavoi. And even if he should erect two lechayim, one next to the long side and one next to the short side, and a lechi is for the purpose of a partition, nevertheless, it is forbidden, for we have already explained that even with a lechi one requires a recognizable sign, and diagonally it is not a recognizable sign; and there are those who permit it with lechayim. (Bach, and see Magen Avraham, subsection 32). But with a tzurat hapetach it is certainly permitted, and he may extend it diagonally and use on the short side up to the short side and on the long side up to the long side, for behold, it is like a complete partition, and even diagonally it is a partition. And that which we said, that one should not place the kora diagonally, this is in such a case of long and short, but within the mavoi he may place it diagonally if he wishes, and use here until the end of the kora and there until the end of the kora, for since there is a wall opposite a wall, it is a recognizable sign even diagonally, and there is no stumbling block in this.

If one placed the lechi in the middle of the mavoi, if from the lechi and outward toward the entrance of the mavoi there are courtyards open to the mavoi, and they also made a lechi for the entrance of the mavoi—the inner lechi is not effective to divide the mavoi into two mavo'ot, such that these may make an eruv for themselves and those for themselves; rather, they prohibit one another until they make an eruv together. For that which they said, "a lechi is on account of a partition," it is not a literal partition to separate this from that entirely, but rather regarding the completion of the fourth side it is on account of a partition, but it is not like a complete partition to separate half of the mavoi from the second half. And if there is no courtyard at all after the inner lechi—one may carry until the inner lechi and no further, for they have revealed their intention that they made this lechi as the primary one. And even if they placed another lechi at the end of the mavoi, if they did not uproot the first one or did not explicitly nullify it, who is to say that they rely on this outer one, perhaps they rely on this inner one. (It appears to me)

And if there are houses after the inner lechi, and they did not place a lechi at the end of the mavoi, behold the houses that are after the lechi are certainly forbidden in carrying, for they have no lechi; however, they do not forbid those dwelling before the lechi, and the inner ones are permitted to use from the lechi and inward if they made an eruv among themselves, for since the outer ones did not make a lechi and cannot carry in the mavoi, it is as if they have withdrawn from the mavoi and they do not forbid the inner ones. And it is not similar to two chatzerot, one inside the other, where sometimes in the absence of an eruv from one of them it forbids the other, as will be explained in siman 378, for there too it only forbids one who has the right of passage over it, such as an inner one over an outer one and not vice versa. Furthermore, that is regarding chatzerot, but in a mavoi, those who did not make a lechi are not considered as residents of the mavoi, and they are as if they have withdrawn from here, and the end of the mavoi is considered to be at the lechi.

But if they made two strips on the two sides of the mavoi in the middle of the mavoi, or a strip of four on one side, or when it is more than ten and they made a tzurat hapetach, even if there are courtyards from the correction and outward and the outer ones also made a correction for the head of the mavoi with a lechi or a korah—they are divided from one another, and each part makes an eruv for itself, and they do not prohibit one another. And the reason for the matter is that since a lechi would have sufficed, and they added to the correction with two strips or a strip of four or a tzurat hapetach, it follows that their intention is to divide from one another entirely. And it is effective in such cases, for are they not permitted to divide? Rather, with the necessary correction this is not a division, unless they added to the correction. (And see Taz subsection 23 and see below in siman 392)

And just as the law is regarding a lechi, so too it is regarding a korah, and they may place a korah in the middle of the mavoi, and they shall only carry until the korah. And if there are residents from there and beyond and they also placed a korah at the end of the mavoi—they prohibit one another, until they make an eruv together, and if they did not make a korah—they are removed from the mavoi, and these make an eruv for themselves. And know, that all these matters apply when there is in that half of the mavoi validated by a lechi or korah the entire status of a mavoi, namely its length exceeds its width, and its length is not less than four amot, and there are houses and chatzerot open into it. But if not so, this half does not have the status of a mavoi but rather the status of a chatzer, and it requires either a post of four or two posts of any size on the two sides.

From the laws that were explained regarding a mavoi we have learned, that the same law applies to a single chatzer that has many houses and they wish to divide from one another, so that each half of the chatzer shall make an eruv for itself, they must make an addition beyond their necessary rectification. And since their necessary rectification is a post of four or two posts of any size, they must now make two posts of four by four or a tzurat hapetach. And our cities which are integrated with a tzurat hapetach on every side, there is nothing here to divide them into two, for behold, the tzurat hapetach is the necessary rectification, and they must make a complete partition to divide from one another, or in a breach of less than ten to make a tzurat hapetach there, for this is not the necessary rectification, as two posts or a post of four would have sufficed. And it is possible that even in more than ten they can divide from one another by means of a tzurat hapetach, because it is like a complete partition, and therefore even though it is necessary—it is effective, and this requires further deliberation. (And see Magen Avraham subsection 34 regarding a city surrounded by a wall and doors, that they do not divide from one another except by means of a partition, see there, and it implies that a tzurat hapetach is not effective, and perhaps he did not delve into this, and a tzurat hapetach is like a partition, and examine this closely).

A mavoi that is twenty amot wide at its opening and one wishes to divide it into two, so that each one will not be more than ten and be required to have a tzurath hapetach, it is not effective to divide it in the middle with a reed or any partition, even four tefachim wide, because we say "the air from this side and the air from that side come and nullify it," and it is as if it does not exist. Rather, the sages said: one makes a pas ten high for a length of four amot and stands it along the length of the mavoi. (10b) For since it has the length of the minimum measure of a mavoi, the airspaces do not nullify it, even when each of the airspaces on the sides is larger than it, as is the case here, where each side has an airspace of more than four amot. And the reason for the matter is that regarding complete mechitzot, it is not relevant to say "the air from this side and the air from that side come and nullify it," for mechitzot are a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai in their generalities and their details; and just as we do not say this regarding a gap of less than three between reed and reed, because we have learned the halacha that it is considered lavud, so too in all matters of mechitzot. It is only when one makes a separation between partition and partition that we say the airspaces nullify the separation. Therefore, they required that he stand this pas of four amot along the length of the mavoi, for if he were to stand it along its width, the airspaces would nullify it. But now, that he stood it along the length of the mavoi and made it into two mevo'ot, this pas becomes a third wall for each mavoi, and regarding a mechitzah, airspaces do not nullify. According to this, it is necessary that in each part of them there be the law of a mavoi regarding houses and courtyards opening into it, and all the conditions of a mavoi. Consequently, if he validates them with a lechi, he must stand a lechi in each one; and if he validates them with a korah, he may place a long korah of twenty amot over both of them, provided that the korah is not three tefachim distant from the separating pas, since it is considered a mechitzah for each one. (So it appears in my humble opinion to be the explanation of the matters, and so it appears to me from the words of the Rashba in the Avodat HaKodesh which the Eliyah Rabbah brought in subsection 39, and this is his wording: "And now the air from here and from there does not nullify, for air does not nullify the walls of the mavoi." Thus far his words, and examine it closely).

And the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 33 wrote that from the post until the middle wall of the alleyway, it has the status of a crooked alleyway, for these two alleyways curve, and in the middle they are open at both their ends to the reshut harabim. Thus far their words. The explanation of the matter is that it is indeed true that we said this post divides the alleyway into two alleyways, but this is only if the post reached until the middle wall, such as if the entire span of the alleyway is not more than four amot, or if the post is longer than four amot. But when the post is four amot and the span of the alleyway along its length is more, then it only divides it until the end of the four amot of the post's span. And this is certain: if those who dwell from there and beyond are not concerned with the permission to carry, these alleyways can divide this one for itself and that one for itself. But if they also desire to carry and to be included in the eruv, and for them it is all one alleyway, it is like a crooked alleyway, and therefore they must necessarily make a tzurat hapetach at the curve, and at its other side a lechi or a korah, as will be explained in the next siman.

But there are some of our teachers who say that this does not have the law of a crooked mavoi at all, for a crooked mavoi is only when there are two sides of the reshut harabim such as east and south and the like, for then it is like an open mavoi. But when two ends are toward one side, as in this case—we have no concern with it. And even though it will be explained in the next siman that even in a case crooked like the letter chet it is a crooked mavoi, it must be said that one opening goes out to a different side. (Ritzba in Tosafot ibid.) And the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, in section 33, is that even according to the previous opinion, this is only when there is more than ten amot from the post to the middle wall. But with ten, and certainly with less—this is nothing more than a mere opening. And even though in a completely crooked mavoi, even with less than ten it is like an open mavoi, that is in two complete mevaot, but not in such a case. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 36, wrote that this is in two sides of the reshut harabim, see there. And I wonder, for this is the opinion of the Ritzba that we wrote, and he wrote explicitly even with more than ten, see there, but Tosafot and the Rosh do not hold so. Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion as I have written, and so it appears explicitly from the Taz, subsection 26, and the words of the Magen Avraham require further study).

The Ritva in his novellae disagrees with everything that has been explained, for he explained that this post does not make it into two mevo'ot at all, and it is only to diminish the width to more than ten, and we do not say "the air from this side and that side comes and nullifies it," for regarding a post four amot long we do not say this reasoning as we do regarding partitions. According to this, it remains one mavoi as before and one lechi is sufficient, and similarly if the beam is much higher than the post, since the post is not part of the partitions. And he wondered at the Ra'avad who requires that the beam not be three tefachim higher than the post, see there. And the reasoning of the Ra'avad is that he holds like the Tosafot and the Rosh, that it is divided into two mevo'ot, and therefore the Rosh brought his words, see there.

There is another rectification for a mavoi that is twenty amot wide, and that is to distance two amot from the wall and make a pas three amot wide, and do the same on the second side, and there will remain an opening ten amot wide. And another lechi is required, for from these it is not effective, since they are distant from the wall, and the lechi must not be three tefachim from the wall. And similarly, he can distance one amah and make a pas of an amah and a half, and distance another amah and make a pas of an amah and a half, and similarly on the second side two pasin of an amah and a half, and two spaces of an amah. And similarly, he can distance two amot and two tefachim and make a pas of two amot and four tefachim, and similarly from the second side, and so too anything similar to this, and another lechi is required for the reason that has been explained. And the general rule is that one must see that the pas shall be more than the space between the wall and the pas, for if not so, "the air from this side and from that side comes and nullifies it," for behold the two airs exceed it, and also each air is equal to it. Therefore, it must be more than the air of one side, for in such cases the two airs do not combine to nullify it, since against each one of them it is stronger.

And this strip that we mentioned, it does not need to be from a single board or a single plank to diminish the width of the air of the mavoi, for even if one makes it from reed after reed with less than three [tefachim] between them—it is also permitted, for anything less than three is considered lavud, and it is like a complete [surface], and all the more so when one leans two or three planks against each other or more. And they only need to be careful that they do not leave the large entrance of the mavoi and walk through the small ones, for if they do so, the rectification of the mavoi is nullified, and the lechi rectified within it is nullified, and it turns out this mavoi is without rectification. (Rashi 10a, s.v. "dilma") And the Ritva wrote, that if they rendered it permissible with a korah, and the korah is placed from wall to wall—we do not care if they walk here or there. However, it deals with a case where the korah only reaches until the strip that is far from the wall, and the two vacant amot from the wall to the strip do not have a korah over them, and therefore we fear that if they walk through these two amot—there is no recognition of a korah here, see there. And even though according to this the korah is not upon the two walls of the mavoi, it can be said that since it is upon the strip, it is considered as being upon the wall. And according to this, regarding a lechi it must also be said, that they should not walk in the air space where the lechi is not present. And ordinarily we do not fear that they will leave the large entrance and walk through the small one, for why would they do so, since they do not shorten their path, and this concern is only when there is a space in the side wall, for then they shorten their path, and it will be explained in siman 365, see there.

A mavoi that is level from its interior and slopes toward the reshut harabim, or is level with the reshut harabim and slopes toward its interior, if the slope gradually rises little by little until it reaches a height of ten tefachim within four amot of slope—it is as if it were entirely vertical, and this itself constitutes a mechitzah, and it requires no other tikkun. But if it rises within five amot—it is not like a mechitzah, but is rather like any other reshut harabim or karmelit, since it is easy for walking as it is not vertical. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 40, who wrote that it is necessary that the masses do not pass through it, for if they pass through—they nullify the mechitzah. And afterward he wrote, that from the silence of the poskim it does not appear so, and he wrote that perhaps it requires the passage of sixty ribo, see there. And his words are puzzling, and according to what I wrote in section 49 and section 50 this is not necessary, see there carefully, and from this there is support for our words, and examine it well.)