Siman 389

It is a known matter that a Kuti who dwells in a mavoi prohibits the residents of the mavoi until they lease the domain from him, and if not, he prohibits all the residents of the mavoi. And the sages said (67a) that if the Kuti has another opening from his courtyard that is not to the mavoi, but rather to some valley or a karpef, he does not prohibit the residents of the mavoi, because it is more comfortable for him to use that opening than the opening of the mavoi, for there he is alone and the world is spacious for him. And even if it was a small opening that has only four by four, nevertheless, this opening is better for him than the opening of the mavoi, and he is considered as one who has no right of passage in the mavoi. Furthermore, even if we saw him bringing in and taking out camels and wagons all day long through the mavoi, he does not prohibit, because it is certainly more comfortable for him in the other opening where he is alone, and we say that his taking them out through the mavoi is an occurrence. However, this is specifically when the place to which the opening is open is more than a beit satayim, for the world is spacious for him there. But if it is only a beit satayim, and certainly less than this, he prohibits, for it is not comfortable for him in that place, and the mavoi is better for him, even if the mavoi also does not hold much, because it is a trodden path. (It appears to me)

And so too, an Israelite who dwells in a mavoi and did not join in the shituf with them and did not nullify his domain, and he prohibits the mavoi—if he has another entrance that is not on the side of the mavoi, even though he also has an entrance to the mavoi, he does not prohibit, for the reason that has been explained. However, regarding an Israelite it is the opposite: for if this place is more than beit satayim and was not enclosed for dwelling, he prohibits, for behold, this place is not suitable for him at all, as it is forbidden to carry in it more than four amot. This is not the case in a mavoi, where it is permitted to carry throughout its entirety vessels that were at rest within it on Shabbat, and it is more pleasing to him to use the entrance of the mavoi. But when it is less than beit satayim, where it is permitted to carry throughout its entirety, in this case it is more pleasing to him to use that entrance—and he does not prohibit, as he is like one who is not accustomed to using the entrance of the mavoi. And even though regarding a Cuthean we said that beit satayim is not a spacious place for him, this is because he has many uses; but the Israelite does not have many uses on Shabbat, and less than beit satayim is sufficient for him.

And if it was enclosed for a dwelling, even if it is more than a beit satayim—it does not prohibit, for he is able to carry within it. And some say that, on the contrary, that which is enclosed for a dwelling is not included in the calculation at all, and even if it is less than a beit satayim—it prohibits, for since it was enclosed for a dwelling—it is like his courtyard, and it is not considered as surplus space, and he does not desire because of this to withdraw from the mavoi, and this is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, there. And the first opinion is the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory. And know, that which we said regarding an Israelite "more than a beit satayim"—is not exact, for the law is the same for exactly two satayim—it is like more than a beit satayim, according to what was written at the beginning of siman 372, that it is forbidden to take out from a house to a karpef of a beit satayim. (See Magen Avraham who raised this difficulty, but the Gemara and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch employed the common phrasing; and see Eliyah Rabbah and it requires further study)

And know, that in the Gemara there they said, that they have another opening that is not toward the side of the mavoi, and so wrote the Rambam in chapter 5, law 17, see there. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote the language of "window," that even if he has a window—he does not prohibit, see there. And I wonder, for an opening, even a small one—nevertheless it is fit for entry and exit. But a window—it is not fit for entry and exit, only for general use, and who told our teachers that "opening" is not exact, for behold we see that in a place where a window is effective, they said in the Gemara the language of "window," like that of a mavoi where one side is an Israelite etc., (74b) which will be explained in the next siman, and so is the language of the Mishnah at the beginning of chapter 7. But here, behold the Sages, of blessed memory, said "opening," and from where does he have it that even with a window it is permitted, and it requires further study. (The Rif did not bring this law and it requires further study.)