Siman 364

Even though a tzurat hapetach is considered like a partition, nevertheless, for a full reshut harabim, a tzurat hapetach is not effective to make it like a reshut hayachid to permit carrying there. And the reason for the matter is that while from the Torah, when one makes a tzurat hapetach on one side of a reshut harabim, and certainly on two sides, one who throws from within it to a reshut hayachid would not be liable, nevertheless, the Rabbis did not permit making an eruv in the reshut harabim itself by means of a tzurat hapetach. And this is not a wonder, for even in a bik'ah we did not permit by means of a tzurat hapetach from all sides, as I wrote in siman 362, section 30, and there is no rectification for a reshut harabim except with full partitions and doors, and that they be locked every night. And so they said in the Gemara (6b): "Jerusalem, were it not that its doors are locked at night, they would be liable for it on account of reshut harabim." And the Rambam in chapter 17 ruled that it is not specifically actual locking, but rather that they be fit for locking, meaning that the doors should not be sunken in the dust. And if they are sunken, one must clear the dust and repair them so that they are fit for locking. And even if the governor of the city does not allow locking, this is nothing, for the doors make the entrance into an entrance in this partition. And after one has made for it the rectification of doors, it is all considered like one courtyard, and its alleys do not require the rectifications of a lechi and korah. (And know, that this which says "Jerusalem, were it not that its doors are locked, they would be liable for it on account of reshut harabim," even though there are still partitions and also a tzurat hapetach over the place of the entrances. But this is due to the reason that "the multitudes come and nullify the partition," for the master of this teaching is Rabbi Yochanan, and he holds like Rabbi Yehuda on page 22, see there. But we hold like the Rabbis, that we do not say "the multitudes come and nullify the partition," as I wrote in the previous siman. And even without locking, the law of Jerusalem is only like a karmelit, and the sugya in Eruvin 101a in the Mishnah of "the market of the fatteners" and the Gemara there is also according to Rabbi Yehuda, for the anonymous Sages of Rabbi Meir are Rabbi Yehuda, for if not so, the answer of Rav Papa there would not suffice, see there and examine carefully.) (And one may be lenient like the Rambam and the Tur that specifically locking is not required, and see the Pri Megadim).

Specifically for a reshut harabbim itself, a tzurat hapetach is not effective. However, a mavoi that is open to a reshut harabbim at its two ends, or is open on one side to a reshut harabbim and on the second side to a karmelit, or on its two sides to a karmelit—it requires a tzurat hapetach on one side and a lechi or a korah on the second side. For when one makes a tzurat hapetach on one side, it possesses three partitions, and it is like any mavoi where one makes a lechi or a korah on the fourth side. This is when it has all the laws of a mavoi that were explained in the previous siman; if not, it has the law of a chatzer, and a lechi and korah are not effective on the fourth side, but rather two strips or a strip of four tefachim as I wrote there. However, regarding the side that requires a tzurat hapetach, there is no difference. And that which we required a rectification on the fourth side, this is when this side is open to a reshut harabbim or to a karmelit. But if it is open to a chatzer, even if it is not joined by an eruv, and even though one side is open to a reshut harabbim—it does not require a tzurat hapetach, but rather on its two sides lechis or korot, a lechi from here and a lechi from here or a korah from here and a korah from here. And the reason for the matter is that the side open to the chatzer is like it is closed, for the partitions of the chatzer that are on the other side rise for it, and it is like a mavoi closed on three sides, which only requires a lechi or a korah on the fourth side. And that which we required also a lechi or a korah on the side of the chatzer is only for the sake of a recognition, because it is open to a chatzer. And for this reason, there is one who holds that a korah is not effective for the side of the chatzer but only a lechi, which is for the sake of a partition, and it is like it is closed. (Bach)

And know, that there are some of our teachers who hold that an alleyway open to the reshut harabbim at both its ends requires a door fit for locking on one side. (Rashba and Maggid Mishneh chapter 17 in the name of "there are those who disagree," see there). And there are some of our teachers who hold, that an alleyway that is thirteen and a third amot wide, like the measure that was in the strips of the wells, and is open at both its ends to the reshut harabbim—its law is like the reshut harabbim itself. (Tosafot 6a). However, the first opinion is the opinion of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh, and so we establish the law. (And in the Shulchan Aruch only this opinion was brought, see there).

And know, that this requirement of ours for doors in a reshut harabim is because doors are obviously like a complete partition even in the eyes of people, and it is not similar to a tzurat hapetach. If so, even if there is a proper door on only one side, which is locked or fit to be locked—it is sufficient on the second side with a lechi or a korah, like all mevo'ot. And such is indeed the opinion of the Rashba, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote in chapter 17. However, our teachers the authors of the Tosafot (6a, s.v. "veha'amar") wrote that in a case where the third partition is by means of a door—one also needs a door in the fourth, see there; and so it is explained from Rashi there (s.v. "chayavin", see there). However, according to the words of Rabbeinu Yitzchak, the author of the Tosafot, it appears that he holds like the Rashba, see there, and according to this it is a dispute of the authorities. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, wrote that the opinion of the Ri is like the Rashba, and I wonder: why did he not cite from the Tosafot prior to the words of the Ri, where it is explicitly the opposite, and from the Ri there is no necessity. And one should not ask that this is a dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel according to Chananya, and Beit Hillel hold that one door is sufficient, for it can be said that according to the conclusion this refers to mevo'ot that open into a reshut harabim, but in a reshut harabim itself it can be said that even Beit Hillel agree with Beit Shammai, see there and reflect.) (And know, that I heard regarding the law of "fit to be locked," that if the government objects to the locking—it is called "not fit to be locked," and this is not clear to me, as is implied from the sugya of the Shas, see there.)

A crooked alleyway shaped like the letter dalet—meaning that it does not go straight but rather curves to the right or to the left, such that from one side it is open to the public domain in the east or west, and from the second side it is open to the public domain in the north or south—therefore, just as a through-alleyway that goes straight requires a tzurat hapetach on one side and a lechi or korah on the second side, so too here. However, here the obligation is to place the tzurat hapetach at its curve, for there the openness to both sides is visible, and this openness is considered like being open to the public domain. And on the second side, a lechi or korah is specifically required for both of them, as they are considered like two alleyways because of the curve. And it is obvious that one can make two tzurat hapetach at each of the two ends, and at the curve a lechi or korah, for it is all one, as is understood. And consequently, each alleyway can make an eruv for itself and its fellow does not prohibit it, for since they made an eruv for themselves, they revealed their intent that they are removing themselves from one another. And even though in a straight alleyway this is not effective, as I wrote in the previous siman, in a crooked one it is effective, for they clearly appear as two alleyways. And we compel the residents of the second alleyway not to walk on this Shabbat through this alleyway, for if they walk, they will prohibit it for them. And even though it will be explained in siman 378 that a foot permitted in its own place does not prohibit in a place that is not its own, that refers to courtyard where each one has a courtyard for himself. But in an alleyway, everyone has access, and therefore it is necessary to compel them not to walk through here. (Magen Avraham, subsection 3 in the name of the Ri). And know, that this requirement for a tzurat hapetach at its curve applies even if the curve is not more than ten cubits (Gemara 6a), for since this is like being open to the public domain, there is no difference between less than ten and more than ten.

And there is one who says that this requirement of a tzurat hapetach for a crooked mavoi is only when the openings lead to a reshut harabim. But if both openings lead to a karmelit—there is no need for any correction in the crookedness, but rather a lechi or a korah at each entrance, (Taz subsection 2 in the name of Mahariv) and according to this, for us where there is no reshut harabim—it is also so. (ibid.) And even though regarding a completely open mavoi there is no difference between a reshut harabim and a karmelit, nevertheless, regarding an opening by way of crookedness which is not a complete opening—there is a difference. (And the difficulty of the Taz there is answered) And there is one who disagrees regarding this, and holds that it is all one, (Taz ibid.) and the primary view is like the first opinion. (And so ruled the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 5 and so it is explicit from the Magen Avraham siman 363 subsection 27, see there).

And a crooked alleyway shaped like the letter Chet, which is to say that it bends toward the south and afterward bends toward the west, and if so, it has two bends and two openings to one public domain. (Rashi 6a: 'In the alleyway of Nehardea') Therefore, they require two tzurat hapetach at the two bends, and two lechis or korot at the two openings. Or conversely, the tzurat hapetach at the openings, and the lechis or korot at the bends, and their law is like two crooked alleyways, as is understood. And we have already written in the previous siman, section 59, that there are some of our teachers who hold that when the two openings go out to one public domain—this does not have the law of a crooked alleyway to require a tzurat hapetach, for specifically when there are two openings to two sides of the public domain, east and south and the like, it is similar to an open alleyway. But when they go out to one public domain—behold, they are like all other alleyways; however, Rashi, of blessed memory, did not explain it so, and it is likewise clear from the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 3, see there. (And we wrote there that according to this opinion we must say that even though it is like a Chet, nevertheless the opening of one of them inclines toward another side).

And know, that the law of a crooked maboi applies even when many mebo'ot are open to one another, and this one goes to the east and this one to the south, and afterwards this one to the west and afterwards to the north, and so on. And consequently, since all of their curvatures are only toward one another, and likewise the openings are from one to another and not to the reshut harabbim, nevertheless, if the first and the last maboi are open to the reshut harabbim—all of the mebo'ot are also considered as open to the reshut harabbim from both sides. And every maboi requires a tzurath hapetach at its curvature, and a lechi or korah at its opening to its fellow, or the reverse, a tzurath hapetach at its opening, and a lechi or korah at its curvature, and every maboi is considered as open to the reshut harabbim. (That which is written in the Shulchan Aruch in the singular—is not precise).

A mavoi made like a centipede—which is a creeping creature that has many legs, two rows of legs on the right and on the left, and they are aligned one not opposite the other (Tosafot 8b, s.v. "Mavoi")—and so too this large mavoi, to which small mevo'ot open from here and from there, whether these are opposite those or these are not opposite those (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And each of the small ones, besides the fact that each opens to the large mavoi, they each open from the other side to the reshut harabbim. And consequently, each one has the law of a crooked mavoi, which has two openings to the reshut harabbim: one of its own and the second of the large mavoi, which is also perforce open to the side of the reshut harabbim. And it has already been explained that that which opens to a mavoi, where the mavoi opens to the reshut harabbim, it is as if it itself opens to the reshut harabbim. Therefore, each of the small mevo'ot requires at the place of its opening to the large mavoi a tzurat hapetach, and at its second end that opens to the reshut harabbim, a lechi or a korah, or vice versa. And the large mavoi, if it has only one opening to the reshut harabbim, one makes at its head a lechi or a korah and it is sufficient for it. And even though it is also a crooked mavoi by means of the small ones, behold, it has a tzurat hapetach at each of the small ones in the place where they are open to it, and the tzurat hapetach avails for the small ones and for it. However, if it is open from its two ends to the reshut harabbim, and behold it has three openings to the reshut harabbim—two of its own and one for each small mavoi—therefore, consequently, it requires for its two openings a tzurat hapetach on one side and a lechi or a korah on the second side. (So it appears to me in the explanation of "a mavoi made like a centipede"; and see Beit Yosef and Bach, and examine it closely).