Siman 388

If they did not establish an eruv for the courtyards and did not establish a partnership at all, it is a simple matter—that from the houses it is forbidden to carry both to the courtyards and to the mavoi, and likewise vessels that were situated in the houses at the onset of Shabbat—it is forbidden to carry them even from a courtyard to a mavoi, and likewise from courtyard to courtyard. However, vessels that were situated in the courtyard at the onset of Shabbat—it is permitted to carry them from courtyard to courtyard, and from a courtyard to a mavoi. And likewise vessels that were situated in the mavoi at the onset of Shabbat—it is permitted to carry them throughout the entire mavoi, and from the mavoi to the courtyards, for it has already been explained at the beginning of siman 372 that roofs, courtyards, karpifot, and mavoiot—all of them are a single domain regarding vessels that were situated within them on the eve of Shabbat.

And behold, in the Gemara (91a) there is a dispute regarding this, for Rav holds: When is it permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard and to an alleyway vessels that remained within them for Shabbat? In a case where all the courtyards did not make an eruv at all, even each courtyard for itself, for then vessels from the houses are not commonly found in the courtyard. But if each courtyard made an eruv for itself, for then vessels from the houses are commonly found in the courtyard, therefore even vessels that remained in the courtyard—it is forbidden to carry them to another courtyard and to an alleyway, for we fear lest they also carry vessels that remained in the house, since when they have made an eruv they are very common. And Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan disagree with Rav, and they hold that whether they made an eruv or did not make an eruv—it is permitted, for we do not decree lest they also bring out vessels that remained in the house. And Rashi, the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Ra'avad, and most of the poskim ruled—that the halacha is like Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, and not like Rav, and it is permitted in any case to carry vessels that remained within them from one to another, and we have already mentioned this there in siman 372.

Therefore, the words of the Rambam in this matter are very puzzling, as he wrote in chapter 5, law 15: "An alleyway in which they did not make a shituf, if the courtyards made an eruv with the houses—one may only carry within it four amot like a karmelit, for since the courtyards made an eruv with the houses, the alleyway is rendered as if only houses without courtyards are open to it, and therefore one may not carry in all of it. But if the residents of the courtyards did not make an eruv, one may carry in all of it vessels that were resting within it at the start of Shabbat, like a courtyard in which they did not make an eruv." Thus far his words. And he wrote this based on the sugya in Shabbat (130b), for there a statement of Rava was also brought. And the Gemara previously explained that this is the reasoning of Rava: because since the courtyard made an eruv with the houses, the alleyway is rendered like houses without courtyards. And we hold that the fitness of an alleyway is only when houses and courtyards are open into it, as written in siman 363. It is understandable that when all made an eruv and it is permitted to carry in all of them, they are all properly like a single type, and it is properly houses and courtyards open into it. But when they did not make a shituf in the alleyway, and the courtyard with the houses made an eruv for themselves and the alleyway is distinct from them, and the courtyard with the houses are as one—it appears as if there is only one thing in the alleyway, houses without courtyards. Now, Rashi and Tosafot explained there that according to the conclusion this reasoning is nullified, and so wrote the Ra'avad. However, this is not so difficult, for the Rambam explains this reasoning even according to the conclusion, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote; see there. (For Rav Ashi answers: "What caused the courtyards to be forbidden? Houses, and they are not present." And Rashi and Tosafot explained that this is because it is common for vessels of houses to be in the courtyard; see there. And the Rambam would explain that this is the explanation: that when they did not make an eruv they are like two things, and there are houses and courtyards. This is not the case when they made an eruv, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote; and examine this.)

But regarding the essence of the matter, it is very astonishing, for this is all according to Rav, but according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan in Eruvin it is not so, and the halacha follows Rabbi Yochanan over Rav, and all the more so when Shmuel is together with Rabbi Yochanan. And it appears in my humble opinion that the law is with the Rambam, for indeed it is difficult why the Shas in Shabbat troubled itself to search for a reason for this ruling of Rav, for in Eruvin the reason was explained that we decree lest one come to take out vessels of the houses. Rather, certainly the two sugyot do not contradict one another at all, and the reason in Shabbat—everyone admits to it, and there is no disputer in the matter. And that of Eruvin—it is a different matter. And that is, that the reason in Shabbat is only if all the courtyards made an eruv with the houses, and the mavoi remained without courtyards. But if some of them made an eruv and some of them did not make an eruv—behold there are still houses and courtyards from those that did not make an eruv, and in such a case the passage in Eruvin is dealing, and the Rambam's intention is also when all of them made an eruv, as is clear from his wording. But when some of them made an eruv—the Rambam admits that one may carry, and we do not fear lest one come to take out vessels of the houses, like Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan. And there is clear proof for this, for behold in chapter 3, law 19, he ruled explicitly like Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, that whether they made an eruv or did not make an eruv—they are permitted, as we transcribed his wording above, siman 372, section 4, see there. (And I am very astonished at the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and the Acharonim, for according to their words the Rambam would contradict himself from chapter 3 to chapter 5. And know, that according to the reason of the Rambam, if the mavoi is permitted by a tzurat hapetach—it is permitted, and so wrote the Magen Avraham, that with a tzurat hapetach one does not need houses and courtyards. However, that which the Magen Avraham wrote that even with two strips it is permitted—I do not know, for if its length is greater than its width—behold it is not judged as a courtyard but as a mavoi, and it requires a tzurat hapetach, and delve into this.)