Laws of Shabbat, Chapter 17 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Shabbat Chapter 17 — Mavoy, Partitions, and the Rabbinic Enactments

Introduction to the Chapter

Speaker 1: We are learning Rambam, Laws of Shabbat, Chapter 17, right in the middle of the Laws of Eruvin.

Let’s just say clearly, because first we must say thank you to the donors. Thank you to the donors who support our shiur, and may there be much success and blessing from the Torah that should rest upon each and every one who supports, and who wants to support, and who listens, and so forth.

Structure of Tractate Eruvin Compared to the Rambam’s Structure

Two Topics in Tractate Eruvin

Speaker 1: Yes, so yes. Now, it says Laws of Eruvin. So, we began to speak about this before the shiur, that in Tractate Shabbat there are two, in Seder Moed in the Mishnayot and Gemara there are two tractates, Tractate Shabbat and Eruvin, where Tractate Shabbat speaks about the laws of Shabbat, and Tractate Eruvin speaks about the laws of eruvin. And in Tractate Eruvin it actually speaks about two things which in our language we call eruvin, but in Tractate Eruvin there are actually both, but one is essentially the enactments for courtyards (tikkunei mevuot) you could say, or enactments for partitions and openings that the Sages said, or so forth, that one must fix, one must add some marker (heiker), a tzurat hapetach, a mavoy, which we are now going to learn in this chapter. And the second is the topic of eruv chatzerot, eruv techumin. Eruv chatzerot and eruv techumin, not eruv tavshilin. Yes, the Rambam does say eruv tavshilin in the Laws of Eruvin, I don’t mean that. Eruv tavshilin is in the Laws of Yom Tov. Yes.

Um, these are two topics which are the laws of eruvin. The laws of hotza’ah, that is, most of the laws that we have learned until now, which is called hotza’ah, the measurements of hotza’ah that we are still going to learn, akirah and hanachah, all these rules, stand in Tractate Shabbat, the melachah of hotza’ah. But all things that have to do with the physical reality of hotza’ah, which means a reshut, or… no, it’s there in the Laws of Shabbat, all these things that we learned about throwing from one reshut, for example, it’s in the chapter of Hazorek, and Hazorek has a lot, because that’s the laws of hotza’ah. But not how one makes a mavoy, how one makes a mavoy is in Tractate Eruvin. But the essence, for example, the four reshuyot for Shabbat is not… it was explained in Tractate Shabbat what are the four reshuyot, all these things.

Speaker 2: Right, right, right. I mean such an individual. Yes, but they saw.

The Rambam’s Division

Speaker 1: Right. So now, the Rambam counted differently. This is what I want to clarify here. The Rambam counted everything, from the perspective of… all the laws of partitions which I now call, or let’s call it the laws of enactments for courtyards, mevuot, which one enacts with… one must know the law or what one must do in order to enact the actual courtyard or the actual reshut, he also included in the Laws of Shabbat. On the other hand, in the Laws of Eruv there remain only all those topics of the… what do you call it? The reshut, shitufin, also the three walls etc.

The Meaning of the Word “Eruv”

Speaker 1: It’s an interesting thing. I would perhaps say this, according to what you said, the word eruv is an interesting thing, because the word eruv has nothing to do with placing, for example, a lechi and korah. We call it “making the eruv,” but it’s a borrowed term (shem hamoshal). Eruv always means when one uses bread to make some statement. Or one uses bread or a cooked dish for eruv tavshilin and says that with this one began cooking on Yom Tov. Or one uses bread and says that with this all people are partners because everyone can eat from this. That’s what the true eruv means. And this is the borrowed term that both things… But what then, in the Gemara the Gemara wasn’t particular about this, and various things were included… because permitting a mavoy through placing a lechi and korah has nothing to do with the word… It’s much more practical, it’s not such an abstraction as bread. Bread is said, it’s actually separate houses, but we all live by the bread, or here I share a piece of bread for eruv techumin.

Lechi and Korah — Marker or Partition?

Speaker 1: The mavoy, you could perhaps say this, it’s a marker (heiker). One could perhaps say so. Ah, very good, you know what? We can connect with this. We asked a question, what happens when one places some small korah that isn’t obvious, not everyone notices that there’s a korah? To another person it looks like it’s still a street. People don’t look, “Ah, next to the house there’s some piece of wood.” We had such a discussion about this, whether the explanation is that when one places the posts, it makes a tzurat hapetach, we see it this way, just as there’s a law that this is called a wall, so there’s a law that up to three tefachim is called lavud, or that an opening is considered closed and so forth, or no, that it’s a marker, people can see the korah, therefore it’s distinguished, it’s actually… a mavoy we speak of with a korah, one may only use a place that isn’t a reshut harabim anyway, it’s already a karmelit or a reshut hayachid, but here there’s a decree so one places a korah. I want to come back, so I say, if it’s a marker it’s very similar to… it’s also such an abstraction, awareness of the opening, or the korah makes it, with this it makes the house, with this it makes the beginning of the entrance to the houses.

The Connection Between Tractate Eruvin and Both Topics

Speaker 2: I understand. No, one can even say simply, you want to answer about Tractate Eruvin why it’s mixed? Yes, the Rambam is apparently more logically organized. It could be. Let’s say this, what we commonly call an eruv isn’t even the eruv of our Tractate Eruvin, because our eruv we don’t usually make from a mavoy, we’re simply talking about making a tzurat hapetach, essentially a partition is built, let’s say a weak partition which is tzurat hapetach, which according to certain poskim helps. Okay.

Speaker 1: But the main Tractate Eruvin is essentially the rabbinic enactments. You could say this, Tractate Shabbat is the Torah laws of hotza’ah, true it also mentions karmelit and rabbinic laws, but the entire concept that rabbinically a mavoy which essentially by Torah law is a reshut hayachid also needs rabbinic enactments, you could say rabbinically it needs two enactments, it needs both a lechi and korah and so forth and also bread. A regular mavoy needs both things, because it’s both a place that has only three partitions, and also a place where multiple people live. So presumably this is the connection of Tractate Eruvin, more the practical thing, but the Rambam goes more with the theoretical thing, and the Rambam includes here, as we learned yesterday, all the rabbinic matters, all the rabbinic laws of hotza’ah, if there’s another rabbinic law of hotza’ah that one must make a mavoy, an enactment and so forth. Excellent.

Content of Chapter 17 — Enactments for Mevuot and Partitions

Introduction to Previous Chapters

Speaker 1: Okay. Let’s go back to the topic, in the previous chapters when we already learned the Laws of Shabbat and he enumerated the 39 melachot, but specifically regarding carrying out on Shabbat, that is, regarding the prohibition of motzi, the previous chapters enumerated the actual matter of carrying out from reshut to reshut and one is liable. In the previous chapter he explained the four reshuyot, what makes something a reshut hayachid, what makes something a reshut harabim, what happens in various cases when… the last one was more about what makes things a karmelit and a makom patur, and how one fixes that something shouldn’t become a reshut harabim and so forth.

Speaker 2: Exactly, approximately. The previous, let’s say this, the second, the previous chapter was, yes, I mean the topic of the thirty-six regarding dwelling, but the second half of it was more the topic you’re saying, partitions, how one makes partitions, what’s called a partition. A place that’s too large becomes a reshut hayachid, how one makes it back into a reshut hayachid.

The Topic of Chapter 17 — Places That Are Fundamentally Reshut Hayachid

Speaker 1: Okay, in this chapter we’re going to learn this, places that fundamentally are a reshut hayachid, which the chapter will enumerate, and it begins with mavoy, which people say mavoy, and we discussed that one must say mavoy. A mavoy is essentially a reshut hayachid, because it’s a place that’s designated for a group of people to live, and it’s an enclosed place from three sides where there are houses around. But what then, since it’s open to the reshut harabim, the Sages decreed that it needs another enactment. It’s not enough that it’s a reshut hayachid because it has all the laws of reshut hayachid, but there must still be such clarity for people that here the reshut harabim ends, here the reshut hayachid begins.

And the same thing will be with other places, such as around a pit, we’re going to learn around a well, so that one can approach, how does one make a place that’s in the middle of a reshut harabim should acquire the status of reshut hayachid, and so forth. In total, a few things that we’re going to learn here how the Sages give advice how it should be clear that it’s a reshut hayachid, even if in various ways it looks like a reshut harabim or because it’s open to the reshut harabim.

Speaker 2: The verses in Ruth are essentially from valley to leniency. In mavoy a stringency was apparently attached, that one needs a certain leniency there, that one can make very weak partitions. I mean by mavoy there are also cases where even a community can emerge, but yes. One must think, the Rambam doesn’t make this clear, what holds the third side of a mavoy. Yes, later he says something about this, yes.

Law 1 — A Mavoy That Has Three Walls

Speaker 1: So let’s begin. Now, the Rambam says this, a mavoy that has three walls, it has three walls. So the first thing the Rambam gives an example of a mavoy. What would we call today, a mavoy would be called a “dead end,” yes, a street that’s a “dead end,” that’s closed at the end. Apparently, as it’s built with houses. We’re talking about a mavoy that’s built, and the houses make like a wall. So it’s very different from a reshut harabim. It’s also presumably not any… what was the law of reshut harabim there? Even if it’s sixteen amot, so that it shouldn’t have the law of reshut harabim, and it belongs to the people of that… we’re not talking about the thing that people have a right to enter. In reshut harabim we don’t talk about the right to enter, that’s not the word.

Speaker 2: There’s a matter of use. It comes in a bit, even though we see later in the laws, I mean more with shitufei mevuot, but the matter can come in of… because it looks like a reshut harabim.

Speaker 1: Let’s see, we’ll see here. Let’s say clearly, the main rule, although there’s a small exception. The main rule that we should say once for some reason, although essentially it’s simple in the Laws of Shabbat, the laws of reshut hayachid and reshut harabim have nothing to do with the laws of Choshen Mishpat regarding whom it belongs to. It only has to do with partitions.

The Rule: Shabbat Domains Have Nothing to Do With Ownership

Speaker 1: There’s a small exception. The one thing that does have to do with ownership, but perhaps not exactly with ownership, but more with use, is the topic of the laws of eruvin that we mentioned. That, when there are two people to whom the mavoy belongs together, then they need to make bread and so forth. There comes in very clearly the topic of what we would perhaps think the Sages are saying, that one person’s reshut nullifies the other person’s reshut. That is, you can’t use a reshut hayachid which is more of a reshut hayachid, if it’s either mine or yours, until you make it so it should be both of theirs. This is already the rabbinic laws apparently. The rabbinic laws of shituf mevuot, the eruv chatzerot, apparently explicitly speaks about, yes, about the topic of whom it belongs to or who may use it.

Innovation: Reshut Harabim — The Condition of “Rabim Bokin Bo”

I want to understand, a main street where they do market there, they do commerce there, and it’s so many amot wide and everything, but it’s built in a way that there are houses on all three sides, it starts with the law of reshut hayachid. It’s an interesting thing.

Let’s not go into the streets of commerce. A mavoy is a place where people live, people move around. Everyone is let into the mavoy, it’s not a problem.

We haven’t yet learned that there’s a distinction how many people move around or which people move around. We did learn a bit, exactly with reshut harabim we learned it. This is what I’m saying, this is a bit of an exception. We learned with the laws of reshut harabim, we learned one of the basic laws of reshut harabim, what should be a reshut harabim as opposed to a karmelit. What’s the difference between a karmelit and a reshut harabim? The main difference is whether people move around there, right? Except for the various karmelits, such as less than four tefachim and so forth. But a normal karmelit is essentially a place that belongs to the public, you can pay to be there, everyone can be there, no one moves around there, like a sea. Even if not, it’s still a reshut harabim. It’s a karmelit.

Ah, a karmelit you say, yes. A karmelit, I’m saying. What we said before a minute ago, I’m just trying to say the lessons that emerge more or less from the laws. Tosafot says earlier that it has nothing to do with who uses it or to whom it belongs in the laws of Shabbat domains, except for the rabbinic laws of eruv, is not true regarding reshut harabim. Because reshut harabim does have a condition that the public must pass through it (rabim bokin bo), the public must move around there. For example, between the pillars by the… not the between the pillars, but the… you know it, the bench there which I don’t remember what it was called. Yes, yes, the… the between the pillars, where it’s said that it’s not a place where the public moves around, or to the reshut harabim and so forth. They’re not a reshut harabim, by the way, if it belongs to them, it’s the same partitions, and since the public doesn’t move around there, then it’s a karmelit. Right.

So in that sense there is such a thing. In mavoy this isn’t stated. It’s certain that the public may go, it’s not simple that there’s a gate that a guard doesn’t let in. But the main thing, the Rambam makes it the main thing because it’s closed. The language of the Rambam, that a place with three partitions is called that it’s not a reshut harabim by Torah law. That’s the language, it’s not clear. He brings him a mixture, the other Rishonim, the responsa of the Rashba discusses what the law is. In any case, let’s learn.

Definitions: Mavoy Satum and Mavoy Mefulash

But the fact of a mavoy is very clear what it is, as you say, essentially a cul-de-sac, a closed place from three sides that’s closed, and one enters on one side. This has two types of mevuot, right? That’s called a mavoy satum. Right? Yes.

After that there’s another type of mavoy. Okay, this is called mavoy satum, and the laws will be different. And a mavoy that has only two walls, end and corner, it’s not a cul-de-sac, but it’s a regular, let’s say a street in Williamsburg, which is surrounded by two sides of partitions, houses around or walls around, but it’s open. It’s open from both sides. And they enter through one and exit through the other, however it is there’s no corner here, it’s open, one can cut through it. It is called a mavoy mefulash. Mefulash always means something that’s open, yes, a hole was made in something, and if it goes both ways it’s called mefulash, opposite of satum. Mefulash perhaps means this language, one can go through it, in short, that’s what it means.

A Closed Alley Looks More Like a Private Domain Than an Open Alley

So a mavoi sasum (closed alley) looks more like a reshus hayachid (private domain) than a mavoi mefulash (open alley), I can understand that, it’s more enclosed. There are other halachos, a mavoi sasum is easier to make kosher, and a mavoi mefulash is harder. That means, we need to add that the Chachamim added here, that even though because it’s four amos it’s already enough, it’s not a reshus harabim (public domain), from the Torah it’s already not a reshus harabim, but since it’s open to the reshus harabim, people will walk in there, it’s next to the reshus harabim, one needs to place a heker (distinguishing mark) that here a reshus hayachid has begun.

Halacha 1: How Do We Permit a Closed Alley?

So what is the heter (permission)? So a mavoi sasum needs a weaker heker, and a mavoi mefulash needs a stronger heker.

The Rambam says here, “How do we permit a mavoi sasum? One makes for it on the fourth side a lechi (vertical board), on the fourth side, the one side that is still open, one makes a lechi, a small board, standing upright. Or one makes for it a korah (horizontal beam), or one places a korah, a horizontal beam on top of the entrance where one enters, and that is sufficient.”

Explanation: It’s Considered As If the Fourth Side Is Closed

So the Rambam explains what helps the lechi or the korah? That is, “making a korah or making a lechi is considered as if the fourth side is closed,” and one views the lechi or the korah as if it’s a wall, as if the fourth side has been closed with a new wall, “therefore it becomes a reshus hayachid,” the language “it becomes a reshus hayachid” means it becomes a reshus hayachid, it becomes a clear reshus hayachid. “Therefore one may carry with a lechi or korah,” since one may carry, one may carry in the entire mavoi.

Innovation: Three Walls From the Torah, Fourth Side Rabbinic

So the Rambam explains, “that Torah law,” this is the language, “that Torah law is that with three walls alone one may carry,” and “the fourth side is rabbinic,” the fourth side is rabbinic. “And since it is rabbinic,” the Chachamim were not stringent that one needs a complete wall, “therefore a lechi or a korah is sufficient.” This is a mavoi sasum.

Halacha 2: How Do We Permit an Open Alley?

“And how do we permit a mavoi mefulash?” It needs more than that. So on one side it needs to have “one makes for it a tzuras hapesach (doorway form) on this side,” on one side it needs to have more than either a lechi or a korah, it needs to have both so that it becomes a tzuras hapesach. And once now with placing the tzuras hapesach it has already become like a mavoi sasum, one side is already closed. And the fourth wall, now there’s only the fourth wall that needs to be fixed, so it’s now a law like a mavoi sasum, and for the fourth wall a lechi or a korah is sufficient.

Halacha 3: A Bent Alley — Like an Open One

The Rambam says further, what happens when the alley is not closed but it’s also not open? Because mefulash usually means one can walk straight through, calmly, one straight path. But what happens if it turns? It’s not a cul-de-sac, but it’s a bent place where you can’t walk straight through. For example, when a person looks at the entrance of the alley he sees a wall. But when he goes further he sees that it’s not really a wall because it is indeed open.

We hold that the halacha for this is like an open one. We don’t say that because when one looks in one sees a wall at the corner, we should say “ah, that’s also a wall.” It’s not a wall, because in practice it’s open, and we look at the reality that people can go through. Very good.

Halacha 4: An Alley With a Slope — Separated From the Public Domain

Okay, other situations when one doesn’t need any extra lechi or korah, because it’s clear that the place is a separate place.

So “an alley that is high from within,” inside it’s one level place, but “with a slope to the reshus harabim,” there’s a hill that one must go up, that one must cross from the alley to the reshus harabim. The reshus harabim is lower. Or conversely, if the alley is “level with the reshus harabim,” but immediately after one walks in, after the entrance, one still needs to go down to be in the alley, one still needs to walk down. Many developments are actually like this, one goes up steps to enter the development, or one goes down steps to enter the development, and that separates it. One is already in a development that is… no, I’m saying it’s very simple, this is actually for us something we all understand, that if it’s something where one goes up or down, you view it as a separate place. If it begins at street level, you don’t grasp, “ah, but here you’ve walked in. Here you were on an avenue which is a reshus harabim, and here, ah, the street is already a reshus hayachid because there are three sides.” But if there’s such a hill, “it needs neither lechi nor korah, for it is separated from the reshus harabim.” It’s separated, it’s already separated.

Dispute Between Rambam and Raavad: The Measure of the Slope

It doesn’t say here, at least I don’t see otherwise, the clear rules of how big the slope needs to be. You see that there’s perhaps a small hill, or there’s perhaps a certain measure. The Raavad says yes that the hill has a certain size, that it needs to be ten high, an actual partition. Like they learned earlier that a tel hamislakeis asarah misoch arba, not arba. The Raavad says that it’s not a hill, it’s perhaps a small mountain with a clear rule that makes it a partition. He says it needs to be mislakeis asarah misoch arba, which means that within… in the span of four amos it needs to be ten tefachim upward. And that’s a more visible mountain that one sees. But the Rambam didn’t bring any…

That is, it’s visible, but they learned earlier that this is a measure that the Chachamim say that this is called a partition, and not that we say just a little bit of going up. So the Rambam doesn’t look like that, the Rambam looks like it’s like a heker, then it doesn’t need to be so much, so steep, so high. The Raavad learns that it’s simply a partition, it’s essentially a side of the partition.

Practical Difference: A Slope Inside the Alley

But there came out a bit more of a difference between the Rambam and the Raavad, because the Rambam, let’s ask, because the case of the slope is in the alley, may one carry at the beginning of the alley on the slope and from the beginning of the alley? According to the Rambam one would be able to, because it’s clear that here perhaps a new thing begins. If it’s a partition, one may only carry from there and onward.

One needs to look later about in the partition, right? What is the halacha of in the partition? In the partition, like the wall itself, the wall of the house, what then is the halacha? It’s still part of the reshus hayachid. Right, the thickness of the wall which is a reshus hayachid. It actually has such an obligation itself. Under a lechi and a korah is later, one will see the halacha. But from the Raavad he clearly said that when the slope is from inside, not back.

One needs to know how far inside, if there’s still a hold that it’s really deep in the alley, presumably to help. There needs to be something that this cuts off from the alley from the reshus harabim.

My understanding is that the entire alley is lower than the reshus harabim, so until you come with steps, or with a ramp, I don’t know.

An Alley Where One Side Is Entirely to the Sea or to a Public Garbage Dump, and an Alley Open to a Plaza

An Alley Where One Side Is Entirely to the Sea and One Side Entirely to a Public Garbage Dump

Speaker 1: One needs to know how far inside, if there’s still a hold that it’s really deep in the alley, presumably to help. There needs to be something that this cuts off from the alley not from the reshus harabim. My understanding is that the alley is lower than the reshus harabim, so until you come with steps or with a ramp.

The Rambam is however stringent that the measure is simply more like it’s without a visible measure apparently. Yes, but he says separated, he also writes the word separated. He says separated, he says that there’s actually perhaps a wall. It appears from the Rambam that it’s more a matter of heker, similar to lechi and korah.

Digression: Lechi and Korah as Architectural Elements

Presumably, you asked me earlier what helps the lechi and the korah, presumably in olden times, perhaps today too, it was normal, you ask an architect for example, I spoke with an architect about the rooms, one wants to make two areas so that one should see that it’s different, there are solutions, like a sign, one puts a different color, or one puts some small design piece, not really beautiful, like a tzuras hapesach, there are people who have in their living room a tzuras hapesach, have you ever seen? It’s totally the dining room, the living room, you ask him, are you playing a game? No, it actually makes one feel that here is a piece of a room.

So apparently the lechi and korah, this is what the architect in his times would simply do, and two people don’t want to live one next to the other, I know, they placed this thing. So the slope is also of the type that the Rambam likes. Presumably. Very good.

Okay, so for us lechi and korah is an innovation from Tractate Eruvin, presumably it’s an innovation from the architect, not from Tractate Eruvin. Tractate Eruvin uses it.

Examples of Alleys That Don’t Need Lechi and Korah

They bring another example of alleys where one doesn’t need to add a lechi and a korah, because by nature it already has things that separate it from the reshus harabim.

He says that an alley where one side is entirely to the sea, one side, the other side of the alley is a sea, and one side is entirely to a public garbage dump, the other side leads to the garbage of the area, where everyone brings the garbage.

Speaker 2: But it needs to be of the public, right? It’s public, yes.

Speaker 1: So one doesn’t need anything, needs nothing more, because the two places, apparently it means, around this it’s reshus harabim, because it’s open to the reshus harabim. Here he makes like the garbage stands exactly, blocks going through, and so on, like the person should be affected. He doesn’t speak of this, he speaks when the place is not a reshus harabim. It could be the garbage is also separated from the door of the alley by nullification. We’re not speaking of when it’s affected. He wants to say here something else. It can’t be that the person should be affected somewhere where they go in and out.

Speaker 2: You really don’t mean that.

Speaker 1: No, I’m saying, the garbage doesn’t lie on the door, but not there where one places the garbage. But between the large reshus harabim and the place, there’s a strip of public garbage. There’s still enough open space to go through. But the garbage separates it. Okay. I’m already saying, in the middle of the large reshus harabim one wouldn’t have placed any garbage. Garbage lies there because here the reshus harabim has already ended, and here one goes to the alley place.

So there a person could have thought that perhaps the two things aren’t enough, one should still be somewhat a decree, one should place there a lechi and korah, because perhaps something happened. He says no, “public garbage they don’t make to be removed.” If someone simply places there a few bags at the entrance, that doesn’t mean a partition, because tomorrow someone will take them away. Public garbage is a place where there stands a sign, here one should God forbid not throw any garbage or any papers, so everyone knows that there is where one places it, and there one will place for long years. Okay.

And the same thing, the sea. When there’s there some small puddle, one can’t count on that, because in winter there’s a puddle. So we learned earlier that in winter everything is wet. But if it’s really a sea, one doesn’t fear that the sea “lest the sea dry up,” that I know, a tsunami will come and the sea will become dried out. That’s good enough.

An Alley Open to a Public Plaza

Speaker 2: Is the public plaza a reshus harabim? Is that the reshus harabim? I don’t know, let’s see. Apparently no. What is a rechavah? It’s something that is only adjacent to a dwelling.

Speaker 1: Previous rechovos that we saw were something that is only adjacent to a dwelling. So we remember from previous chapters.

Let’s learn. “A plaza of courtyards, the foundation of the adjacent house is not a mound.” Aha. But the previous chapter only stated that it has the status of adjacent to a dwelling.

Let’s learn.

Speaker 2: If it’s… what? I’m here. Yes, okay. Yes yes, I’m here.

Halacha 9: An Alley Open to the Middle of a Public Plaza

Speaker 1: “An alley that is open and entirely to the middle of a public plaza.” Earlier we learned when it’s entirely open to the reshus harabim. Now we’re going to learn what happens when it’s open, it’s open, but it’s not open to the reshus harabim, it’s open to something that has a law like a reshus hayachid, called a public plaza, a street where people may turn, but it’s surrounded by partitions etc.

So, “an alley that is open and entirely to the middle of a public plaza,” it ends, the alley leads into the middle of a public plaza, a street where people may go. So, “if it was not aligned opposite the side of the plaza,” if the alley doesn’t end directly opposite the door where the plaza leads out to the reshus harabim – because the other side of the plaza is open to the reshus harabim, it has a door, everyone, not a door. So if the alley ends directly opposite the door, it looks like the alley leads to the reshus harabim, one just needs to go through the plaza, but it’s directly opposite. So “this is like closed.” Ah, conversely, if it’s not, it’s considered…

Again, I’m saying it first in the evening we’ll learn the Rambam. If it’s open, it’s exactly opposite the door, you still need to go through the plaza, but immediately after is the reshus harabim, it means like you’re open to the reshus harabim. But if not, even though the plaza technically is different from the alley, leads to the reshus harabim, but it’s called like closed, which it’s not open, one can’t go from there to the reshus harabim.

The Rambam says, “if they are not aligned opposite the opening of the plaza, this is like closed,” and I view this alley as if it has a law like a closed alley, “and it needs nothing from the side of the plaza” – one doesn’t need to place anything there, because it’s not open to the reshus harabim, and also not to the part of the plaza that leads to the reshus harabim.

“But if it was entirely to the sides of the plaza” – but if the alley ends at the sides of the plaza, it already stands next to the reshus harabim… no, no, he means conversely. If it’s on the side, in the middle, but not directly opposite, there stand as if walls of the plaza on both sides, which cuts off between the alley and the plaza. But if it’s simply on the side, as if the plaza is simply the continuation of the wall of the alley, then it’s more one connection. Therefore, then it’s forbidden. What does forbidden mean? That one needs to make there a lechi and korah, or a tzuras hapesach, and one needs to view it as if it’s open to the reshus harabim, like an open alley.

Discussion: Why Is “Sides of the Plaza” More Connected to the Reshus Harabim?

Speaker 2: So again, what’s the problem with “sides of the plaza”? Why is that more connected to the reshus harabim? Because there’s no wall?

Speaker 1: We’ve learned many times that walls on the two sides looks like it’s an extra room, an extra area. If you have a place where on the right side there’s a wall, on the left side there’s a wall, even if that wall is from the outside, right? It becomes wider, you see that you’re entering into a new area. Here, perhaps the plaza is perhaps exactly as wide as the alley, or perhaps it’s wider only on one side, but here ends the plaza, the alley, there’s no difference, you continue in, you simply continue as if like the alley, and suddenly the name changes and it’s called a plaza. Ah, one views it as if the whole thing opens to the reshus harabim.

Speaker 2: Right.

Speaker 1: So the plaza, no one says that one should carry into the plaza, one can’t place there any eruv, yes? And there one actually also may not carry, because it’s open to the reshus harabim. Whatever the halacha is there, one needs to learn, one needs to know what the halacha is with carrying in the plaza, because regarding a plaza Chazal didn’t decree, like with an alley. But if the exit of the alley leads straight to the reshus harabim, or what the Malbush Yom Tov said about the wall, we view it as if the alley opens onto the reshus harabim. The point that stands here is that it’s called an open alley, it needs to have a heter on both sides, not only on one side like a closed alley, it needs to be like an open alley.

A Private Plaza — A Stringency

English Translation

All these things are when we’re talking about a rechavah shel rabim (public plaza), but as we saw regarding shel yachid (private plaza), if in the back of the mavoi there is a rechavah shel yachid, even lemata (below) it’s forbidden, then even if it’s open to the middle of the area of the rechavah of the yachid it’s also forbidden. Why? Why is it stricter? Because pe’amim boneh mitzad echad venimtza kulo letzidah shel rechavah (sometimes one builds on one side and it ends up entirely on the side of the plaza). Because when it’s one person, the person can change and build, we’re afraid that he’ll build a house, he’ll build something, and it will turn out that the wall of the mavoi leads to the reshut harabim, and the person won’t realize that it’s technically a mavoi mefulash lereshut harabim (alley open to the public domain).

It’s a gezeirah (rabbinic decree), it’s an interesting piece of gezeirah legezeirah (decree upon decree). Pe’amim, it’s a gezeirah, it’s pe’amim, it’s the order of how one builds, so we need to look at how one builds, where it’s a place where there are people. Yechidim (individuals), yechidim are less stable than rabim (the public). They take away the garbage one day, they build things, it’s not stable. A yachid can tomorrow… But rabim, it depends on the rabim, there are obstacles, they won’t build so quickly.

Discussion: Yachid/Rabim ≠ Reshut Hayachid/Reshut Harabim

Speaker 2: It’s an interesting thing, because the rechavah shel rabim, you said that it has the din of reshut hayachid, a whole one is actually a rechavah shel rabim, meaning even a rechavah shel rabim. But a rechavah shel yachid is stricter. There the mavoi is after all only open to a reshut hayachid, not to a reshut harabim at all, here by the mavoi. But it’s stricter, because we don’t look at which reshut it is, but how far it is from the reshut harabim.

Speaker 1: Good, the yachid and rabim have nothing to do with reshut hayachid and reshut harabim, because the rechavah is always a reshut hayachid. Except perhaps, I’m not sure, the rechavah shel rabim how technically one can carry there, because it can’t be that it should be easier than a mavoi. A mavoi is literally a reshut hayachid for the few people. Here it’s a place where everyone can turn around, it didn’t need any… from what it is yes it needs. It needs an eruv, or they need to be a karmelit. If one lived in the previous place where it’s an open reshut harabim, absolute reshut harabim, and we didn’t have a place that is… yes, that’s not a problem.

Laws of Mavoi: Conditions of Mavoi — Houses and Courtyards, Length and Four Amot, Distinction Between Mavoi and Chatzer

Law: Conditions of Mavoi — Houses and Courtyards Open to It

Speaker 1: What does it mean? He had to make a lechi on the opening, let’s say. Okay. If it has an opening, then it’s not just any opening. If it’s only on three sides, if it’s on four sides, the rechavah is open on four sides altogether. It doesn’t need anything. If you add that the rechavah is open from all sides, except this is just a door, an open door, a petach, yes. I don’t believe one needs a lechi, because if one could also make it kosher for the mavoi. Yes, if it had a tzurat hapetach (form of a doorway), it would help for the mavoi. If one needs to make an eruv with the chatzer and the rechavah, or the rechavah is an ezrat nashim (women’s section). We’re talking everything in the sense of pas, we’re talking everything that it should be recognizably separated from reshut harabim, and the heichi timtza (where do you find it) is that you have here a korah (crossbeam), that you see that this is a new thing. Okay, good.

The text of this siman is just the text of what is called mavoi mefulash lereshut harabim. If it has the interruption of a rechavah in between, it depends on all these details when it becomes recognizably mefulash lereshut harabim. Very good. Good.

And now we’re going to learn, besides the two distinctions of mavoi mefulash and mavoi satum (closed alley), more laws of what makes a mavoi a mavoi so that it should be called a reshut hayachid and so on.

The Rambam says, “echad mavoi nittar belechi o bekorah” (one mavoi is permitted with a lechi or a korah), the law that one can place either a lechi or a korah, because it has the law of mavoi, is only when there are “batim vachatzerot petuchot letokho” (houses and courtyards open to it), when the mavoi leads to houses and courtyards.

Speaker 2: Yes, the chatzerot are inside the batim.

Speaker 1: That means, that it leads to individual apartments of people, and it leads to apartment buildings, but this isn’t…

Speaker 2: No. It leads to chatzerot where there are more houses.

Speaker 1: Right. It doesn’t have to be batim directly. It has to be chatzerot, where in each chatzer there are at least two houses, I guess.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Law: Condition of Length — Four Amot and Above, Its Length Greater Than Its Width

Speaker 1: “Viyehi orko me’arba amot ulemala” (And its length should be from four amot and above). The length must be four amot and above. But here is yes… this is something that is almost not relevant otherwise. But the next one is yes: “viyehi orko yater al rochbo” (and its length should be greater than its width). A mavoi is specifically so when its orko yater al rochbo, the length is greater than the width.

Meaning, if it’s a box, or its rochbo yater al orko (width greater than length), then what?

They say, “aval mavoi she’orko kerochbo” (but a mavoi whose length is like its width), it’s like a box, the length is like the width, “ein lo din mavoi, ela din chatzer” (it doesn’t have the law of mavoi, but the law of chatzer).

Law: Chatzer She’orko Kerochbo — Law of Chatzer, Not Mavoi

And what’s different about a chatzer than a mavoi?

He says, regarding a chatzer, “achat nittar” (one is not sufficient), a chatzer that is open to reshut harabim, it’s not enough either a lechi or a korah, but one must place “shnei lechayim” (two lechis), two boards, “mishnei ruchotav” (from its two sides). “Kol lechi bemashahu” (each lechi of any size), it doesn’t have to be a large lechi, but it has to be two lechayim. “O pas rachav arba meruachat” (or a wide board of four [tefachim]), or a wide lechi that is four tefachim wide, then even one is enough.

Meaning, mavoi is easier, mavoi is enough with one lechi or a korah, and here one needs two lechayim or a pas, a wider pas.

So he’s now said what makes something a mavoi, that its orko yater al rochbo. Therefore the same thing reversed, what makes a chatzer into a mavoi, that makes a mavoi into a chatzer. One can also make a chatzer into a mavoi.

Discussion: Can a Chatzer Have the Law of Mavoi? Does It Need Batim Vachatzerot Petuchot Letokho?

Speaker 2: If a chatzer, if something that… So the meaning of chatzer means where one person lives, and mavoi means where several people live. Originally, the normal order is there are batim in chatzerot, and these are in mavo’ot. But there is sometimes when the chatzer gets a din of mavoi.

Speaker 1: Yes, but the chatzer also needs to have chatzerot and batim open to it.

Speaker 2: Yes, besides that. Chatzerot and batim.

Speaker 1: One can be a mavoi, and when he does that he’ll have a din like a mavoi, he’ll need lechi vekorah, but he won’t need a mavoi because he doesn’t have. He’s already batim petuchim letokho, he’s already a chatzer, he doesn’t need more than that. He already just needs one bayit.

Speaker 2: He doesn’t have batim, he doesn’t have chatzerot. It seems that here one doesn’t need. I don’t know. I can see that one could say so.

Speaker 1: Let’s see further. I mean the next one, “mavoi she’ein bo batim vachatzerot petuchim letokho” (a mavoi that doesn’t have houses and courtyards open to it). This will technically be the previous one, the first one they just learned will be a mavoi she’ein bo batim vachatzerot petuchim letokho. Just as it’s only permitted with one house and one courtyard, so too a mavoi that only has four amot is only permitted with two lechayim and a wide pas.

So a chatzer that is orko yater al rochbo and has batim vachatzerot petuchim letokho… it doesn’t make sense for a chatzer to have batim vachatzerot petuchim letokho.

Speaker 2: I don’t agree. It can’t be. When a chatzer becomes a mavoi, then that means that the leniency is different than a mavoi. Something doesn’t make sense.

Speaker 1: Yes, because batim vachatzerot petuchim letokho is the chatzerot that make it into a mavoi. It’s already a chatzer with batim inside it, or whatever it is. I understand that it can be otherwise. One can be medayek (infer precisely).

Novel Point: Chatzer in the Form of Mavoi Doesn’t Need Batim Vachatzerot Petuchot Letokho

So again, a mavoi that is a mavoi because it’s a mavoi, needs to have all the laws of mavoi. But a chatzer that is a mavoi because it’s tzurat mavoi (the form of a mavoi), doesn’t need to have any laws of mavoi. It doesn’t need to have that one law. All other laws it needs to have, it needs to be four amot, it needs to be orko yater al rochbo. It doesn’t need to be that one law which is impossible for it to have.

Speaker 2: Why does that fall away? Because four amot is just thrown in. There can’t be something that is less than four amot and it should be batim petuchim letokho.

Speaker 1: You said it.

Speaker 2: Yes, how many houses can be open to four amot?

Speaker 1: Everything can be. Four amot is not a significant place. Everything can be. I’m saying, this is not a condition.

Discussion: Does a Chatzer in the Form of Mavoi Need to Have the Laws of Mavoi?

So the question is now whether a chatzer that is tzurat mavoi needs to have the laws of mavoi.

Speaker 2: Yes, it needs to be… it needs to also have the laws of chatzer.

Speaker 1: You said that a chatzer is not something that has batim vachatzerot petuchim letokho. What we say that a chatzer can have a din of mavoi, means that it doesn’t need more than that. It can’t be otherwise. A chatzer is a chatzer.

Look, we have two neighbors. One lives in a mavoi that only has one house.

Speaker 2: I heard your question.

Speaker 1: And the next one lives in a chatzer that has a bunch of houses, and he has a bunch of chatzerot, and a bunch of things, and it’s also… what is he better with? Because what do we still call this?

Okay, it could be that this is just crazy language, because people call things mavoi and chatzer which has nothing to do with the halachah. You’re talking about what are the details. It’s a chatzer because it’s a chatzer, it’s a mavoi because it’s a mavoi.

Speaker 2: The chatzer that is properly established, is permitted, one doesn’t need… there is a simple logic to properly established, it’s not a gezeirat hakatuv (biblical decree). Properly established is a more confined thing, one places one lechi is enough, not two lechayim. A three-sided thing needs two lechayim. What bothers you?

Speaker 1: This is earlier, that a mavoi needs to have batim, that’s simple, because if not it’s not a mavoi. But a chatzer only has… then it’s something else, it’s a chatzer. But you’re right that it comes out that if it has there… ah, what I’m saying doesn’t make sense.

Discussion: How Can There Be a Mavoi Without Batim Vachatzerot Petuchim Letokho?

So what happened in that mavoi? How can there be a mavoi that has other conditions and that lacks batim vachatzerot petuchim letokho? It can’t be proper.

Speaker 2: No, it can be, if it’s not a chatzer. Chatzer means one lives there. That’s the distinction. There is a real distinction between a mavoi and a chatzer. A chatzer is where one person lives, and a mavoi is open to two houses. Not one person.

Speaker 1: A chatzer can have more than one person living, but usually in a chatzer more than one person lives.

Speaker 2: So what does a chatzer mean? A chatzer is not chatzerot petuchot lo?

Speaker 1: Exactly. A chatzer is the area around the house where one uses a bit. The chatzer is open to the mavoi, not to… and the mavoi is open to several chatzerot.

Speaker 2: Aha. A chatzer that is open to other chatzerot is itself a mavoi.

Distinction Between Mavoi and Chatzer: Mavoi is a Place Where One Walks, Chatzer is a Place Where One Uses

Speaker 1: A mavoi is a place where one walks, and a chatzer is a place where one uses. There are different types of use.

Speaker 2: Aha. I mean so.

Speaker 1: Okay. Let’s take a look. Do you want to take a look in Panim Me’irot?

Speaker 2: No, no, I don’t want to look, I want to go further.

Speaker 1: Mavoi… I understand very well what you’re asking, but it’s not a problem.

Law: Mavoi She’ein Berachbo Shelosha Tefachim — Lavud

“Mavoi she’ein bo rochav shelosha tefachim…” Aha. Okay, if someone suddenly finds himself in such a mavoi that doesn’t have three tefachim, first he should run away from there, because he could God forbid die. And after he runs away he should know that one tzarar velechi velavi korah mendel daled etc., I don’t understand the plain meaning of this, “shekhol pachot mishelosha harei hu kelavud” (for anything less than three is considered as connected).

Many times we say in halachot, because that’s how it comes out in the Gemara, although I don’t know why it’s relevant in reality.

Speaker 2: Good, I already know what you think is not relevant. You think it’s relevant.

Speaker 1: Good, every day you walk in streets that are narrower than three tefachim, that means it’s a common occurrence.

Speaker 2: What? Perhaps you don’t walk, but other people walk. Places where it’s not three tefachim wide. How wide is the entrance where you walk there?

Speaker 1: The halachah doesn’t have to… a person is not wider than three tefachim.

Speaker 2: I don’t know, it’s not necessarily a matter and it’s not in the 613 mitzvot.

Speaker 1: Let’s remember, here we’re talking about the door.

Speaker 2: I said, here we’re talking about the door. First of all, ein berachbo doesn’t say by the entrance, he says ein berachbo of the mavoi. The whole…

Speaker 1: It could also be that it’s a theoretical three tefachim.

Speaker 2: Ah, cheftza dechatira (object of digging). It’s certainly discretionary three tefachim, but somehow water and other things that minimize it according to halachah, then one can… I don’t know, you’re asking a question.

Practical Explanation: Narrow Passage in the Back of Houses

Speaker 1: Okay, okay, whatever. Now one can learn what is really the law of the mavoi after it was fixed, it was made kosher.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: I’ll tell you how I can understand the mavoi she’ein berachbo shelosha tefachim, I’m sorry. Let’s say like this, there is a mavoi, and in the back of the mavoi there is such a very narrow, for the windows let’s say, yes? Something fell out and it’s too much, a child can crawl in there and take something, yes?

Okay. So technically it needs to be a mavoi because it’s open… let’s say, there is one way where one walks, the backyard, and in the back of all the houses and courtyards there is something so narrow, I know, to pour out water, whatever it is. So that’s technically a mavoi, because it’s batim vachatzerot petuchim lo.

Okay. He says it’s lavud. The opening is not an opening place at all. When he says shekhol pachot mishelosha harei hu kelavud, he says that the opening is not an opening place where one carries at all. It’s a hole in the back of the house, because there was no opening to make.

Speaker 2: But that’s what it always means too.

Speaker 1: Yes. Okay.

Continuation: Law of Mavoi After Fixing

Now, ah, I had to say it, we learned that the Rambam argued that a mofet (proof), originally,

Laws of Shabbat — Mavoi with Korah Versus Lechi, and Making Reshut Harabim Kosher with Doors

Law 49: The Distinction Between Korah and Lechi

No, when he says kafuf milifnim velifnim ulemala (bent from inside and inside and above), he says that the place is not called an open place where one carries at all, it’s a hole in the back of the house, because there really isn’t any because of… all lavud is this meaning, lavud is a reshut hayachid.

This is what the Rambam says earlier. This is a contradiction to the law he says earlier. The Rambam says earlier that a mavoi with three mechitzot is essentially a reshut hayachid, but the Chachamim don’t allow carrying in it, right? Why? Because it looks too much like it’s connected to the reshut harabim. Apparently, if it’s a reshut hayachid, one also may not, even without a lechi, one may not carry in from it to a reshut harabim, because it’s a biblical prohibition. Here in this law we see that’s not true, that before there is the lechi or the korah it certainly didn’t have any law of reshut hayachid regarding that a zorek letokha (one who throws into it) should be liable.

Look what the Rambam says. The Rambam says earlier, “shemidin Torah beshalosh mechitzot bilvad mutar letaltel” (that by Torah law with only three walls it’s permitted to carry), it’s already a reshut hayachid, “midivrei sofrim ein morin ken larabim” (by rabbinic law we don’t rule so for the public). Right? But when he says “mutar” (permitted), he means to say mutar letaltel betokha (permitted to carry within it), but he doesn’t say that by Torah law it’s forbidden letaltel letokha mereshut harabim (to carry into it from reshut harabim). It’s a contradiction.

The Rambam’s Words in Law 49

How can it be that they made a leniency (kula)… Let’s learn in [chapter] 49. Okay. The Rambam says, **”Why was a measurement needed for the beam (kora)? Even though it’s permitted to carry in all of it as a private domain (reshus hayachid)”** — one may carry inside, that’s why one places the beam, so that one can carry, it becomes a private domain. He’s now going to say that he means throwing from a public domain (reshus harabim) there, that’s his obligation, because he throws from a private domain to a public domain. But he says no, **”One who throws from within it to the public domain or from the public domain into it is exempt, because the beam is made as a reminder (heiker)”**. In essence, this place, the beam didn’t make the place into a full private domain. Rather, they only placed a reminder, the beam is only a reminder.

Let’s finish and we’ll try to understand. But one who validates it with a post (lechi), the Rambam says there’s a big difference between… They discussed that here an alleyway (mavoy) can become valid so that one can carry inside, either through a beam or through a post. The Rambam says that these two things are very different. A beam doesn’t make the alleyway into a true private domain, it’s only some kind of reminder, but there still remain some laws of a public domain or laws of a karmelis, not clear. But not so with a post, but one who validates it with a post, if someone throws from within the public domain to the public domain through it, he is indeed liable, because a post is not just a beam, a post makes the place truly into a private domain. “Because the post is like a partition on the fourth side”, when we place a post we view it as if we placed a partition, therefore it becomes a private domain.

The Raavad’s Question and the Answer

Very good. The Raavad indeed didn’t understand what’s going on here, how can it be? A small hut, three walls with a board, comes out to three partitions, and three partitions is Biblical (d’oraisa). How can the Rambam say that he’s exempt? This is very difficult, yes?

The only way how one can simply make the Rambam work is essentially to be lenient. The Rambam said earlier that three partitions is a private domain, he doesn’t mean a private domain, he doesn’t mean a private domain regarding carrying within it, in other words, it’s a karmelis. But what are the three partitions? That the Sages were lenient that on this karmelis one can place something, so that there should be a reminder that it’s not a regular karmelis, and with a reminder it’s permitted to carry in the karmelis. So it comes out if one wants to make the Rambam work with what he said earlier. He said private domain, he didn’t mean it. It’s very very forced, but that’s the best one can do. Do you understand the problem, right?

One can say other answers, but already, let’s go further. Okay. It could be, it could be that the Sages also held this to be a karmelis, and they were indeed lenient, but it depends.

The Practical Difference: Post is Biblical, Beam is Only Rabbinical

But now, how does one understand the topic of the post? Because a post is indeed Biblical, one must say that it makes a partition, right? So one must say according to the Rambam, because otherwise one cannot be liable. It has such that three walls with a post is Biblical, yes. Three walls without a post is Biblically only a karmelis. So one must look at it from this Rambam’s law here.

Other commentators indeed disagree, it’s not a big practical difference, because this is only a practical difference regarding liability, the main practical law what the law is, is in other words. Do you also say that a post is Biblical and a beam is only Rabbinical, or something like that? A post makes a Biblical private domain and a beam doesn’t, right? As if post and beam work differently. A beam makes a reminder, and a post actually makes a partition. Right.

Discussion: What Happens with a Slope (Midron)?

Speaker 1: And what happens with a slope (midron)? It’s apparently also like a post, right? That’s true.

Speaker 2: No, it’s not. Like the Raavad and the Rambam’s dispute. Yes, the Raavad’s slope is real, and the Rambam’s is not. Yes. Okay. Yes.

Validating a Public Domain with Doors

Let’s learn about what to do with a public domain. Yes.

Okay. Now we’re going to say a way how one can make it so that a piece of a public domain should become a private domain. The typical public domain is usually an open place, but what happens if in the public domain there’s a narrower place that’s surrounded by two walls, and many pass between them, and we want that the place should now receive a status like an open alleyway (mavoy mefulash), so that it should be as if there are two walls, and now how do we make it so that the other two should also become walls?

The Rambam’s Law: One Needs Doors, Not a Doorway Form (Tzuras Hapesach)

“How does one validate between them?” Apparently as if… and many pass between them, people walk through there, so here there isn’t some leniency that one can make some reminder, a reminder isn’t enough. There one needs to make it truly into a private domain. So the many, how does one validate the building, how can one make it stand? Rather one makes it actually truly into a private domain. One doesn’t need to build complete walls, but one places, one needs to make doors on this side and doors on that side. People can continue to walk through, but once there are doors it’s clear that this can be locked. “And afterwards it will be considered a building of a private domain”.

He says, “and one doesn’t need to lock the doors”, one doesn’t have to close the doors, “but they need to be fit to be locked”, there need to be doors that one can lock. And that there are walls that one can lock shows that the place is a private domain, and it makes the place into a private domain.

And therefore, if there are doors there but the doors are neglected and they’re sunken in dirt, they’re not ready now to be moved and locked, “one clears them”, he needs to dig it out, he needs to make it so the doors should indeed be ready, “and fixes them to be locked”, so that one should be able to lock them.

“But a doorway form or a post and beam don’t help in validating a public domain.” A doorway form or a post and beam don’t help in validating a public domain, they only help in validating an alleyway.

Explanation: What’s the Difference Between a Post and Doors?

We need to further understand what’s Biblical here, so what he says that a post is like a partition on the fourth side, also doesn’t mean to say that it’s Biblical. So only Biblically is enough for a karmelis or for a… Here in this law is the law of the eruv that we make.

Okay, that’s the big dispute, but let’s try to understand a basic thing.

Discussion: The Difference Between an Open Alleyway and a Public Domain

Speaker 1: The difference between what one takes together a public domain with a proper open alleyway is what? Because this is truly a part of the public domain, no one lives under the walls, we’re not talking here about the houses.

Speaker 2: Because people don’t live?

Speaker 1: That’s the passing through! It’s a part of the public domain, but one wants to create it anew. Also the passing through, the questions of the passing through.

Speaker 2: Yes, but… what’s the difference?

Speaker 1: An open alleyway isn’t a part of the public domain, it’s open to the public domain. As we learned, there are many things we need to know, because even in a public domain we learned that even things that are open to paths, to the wilderness, are also called a public domain. Yes. It’s not only… ah, he said open to the public domain. So it’s not clear.

That means, one can say as you say, it has to do with what one uses it for in practice, one doesn’t live and so on. Or one can say that it indeed has to do, it’s like a law, that if it’s sixteen cubits, we learned that a public domain is up to sixteen cubits, and according to this it comes out that an alleyway can only be called an alleyway as long as it’s not sixteen cubits. A large alleyway is no longer an alleyway. The Rambam didn’t properly say the law, and I have to tell you, the size.

Practical Application: Williamsburg as an Example

And it means this, I mean that one would say according to the Rambam, if we want to make it very simple, let’s talk about Williamsburg, where the houses are all connected, so a street is called an open alleyway, and an avenue, which is usually wider and there are stores and people passing and dwelling, is a public domain. So if someone wants to make an eruv on the street, he’ll need to place a post and beam. But if he wants to say that the piece of Bedford Avenue, which is a major highway where thousands of cars pass, is a private domain, you actually need to make doors, and perhaps even close the doors or it should be fit to close, if one wants to simplify it very much.

Digression: The Custom with Eruvin in Large Cities

The decisors have had for a very long time an argument that we don’t have the law of courtyards and alleyways, because we don’t use our courtyard, it’s not that sort of use. One goes back to the topic of use, not the topic of partitions. It’s a big debate.

Back to the Law: Why Doors and Not Doorway Form?

But that’s what, let’s go back to the law. Here stands a clear thing, that even a true public domain there’s a way to fix it. What’s the way? With doors. If one makes doors. Not a doorway form, a doorway form won’t help.

Speaker 1: You’re asking a good question, why not?

It seems it’s different. But with doors it can indeed help. And this apparently, but the custom isn’t so. The custom is that even in an apparent public domain, in the large cities, one makes a doorway form, not doors. Because if one makes an eruv that’s a doorway form, it’s very hard to make doors.

But I want another step, it seems to me that doors that one can lock is not a doorway form. It’s much more yes but a statement of whose place this is. When there are doors that one can lock, when you lock it you’re truly saying that you’ve made a house. But even if you can lock it, it’s like a statement that the place isn’t ownerless. There are doors here that one can lock. It’s not a doorway form, it’s not that it should look different from other public domains.

Discussion in the Laws of Eruvin: Doorway Form, Doors, and Alleyway

Doorway Form and Doors — The Fundamental Difference

Speaker 1: That’s my domain for the matter. I hear what you’re saying, that doorway form is… the street didn’t become smaller. Doorway form is a thing… I can tell you a simple explanation why is doorway form a concept at all in a public domain? Because doorway form is a thing that makes a distinction between two rooms, or two areas. As you say, it makes a doorway, as if you’ve entered into a new place.

But when the whole place is a public domain, you don’t need to make a new place, you need to build here a domain. Doors is simply that you’ve built a domain. The law is that the street is still strong, you simply belong less.

Let’s say the following, everyone agrees that a large building, let’s say the largest building in the world, a huge open airplane hangar, where many people go there doesn’t become a public domain. Why? Because it has proper partitions. Or a huge study hall, the largest study hall, right? It doesn’t help.

So the question is, the other side doesn’t become worse. The worse is because there aren’t true partitions. So you make doors, doors is entirely a true building. I didn’t come to say that it’s locked.

Doors That Are Locked at Night — The Concept of “Fit to Lock”

Speaker 1: Why is in practice always the Rabbis, right? For example, we learned that a city is… but you say that it needs to be fit to lock. It means this, I let you go as long as I let. Who is the he? The Rabbi himself. We’re talking about someone who has the power and he can do things, the Rabbi.

So, again, so he says here that there’s an owner here.

Speaker 2: No, I don’t agree. Because the Rabbi himself… One can ask, all the Rabbis are waiting for them to let make a… not peace, yes? That a city with a partition, with a wall that one locks at night. There’s a law turning this is that, that’s the same law.

Who does the city belong to? It belongs to the public, but the public conducts itself that at night they close their door, because they don’t want the whole night to lock a whole city stands here. Because here you’re talking, you’re standing even in a public domain and you must make this piece, you make between them.

But if someone has a public domain, let’s say a land that’s surrounded by a partition, the whole land is already his part of the partition, you can include him in his eruv.

Speaker 1: Yes, yes. The whole world is surrounded. Let’s say a land that’s surrounded by mountains, the land also has a partition around the land. There’s no difference how.

Speaker 2: There’s no difference how, because I’ll tell you more, because also usually the market place in those many cities in Europe, the market place where people shout all those things, where the neighbors turned around, is usually a huge place that’s surrounded by walls from all sides, buildings, but it’s a huge large plaza. The plaza is a public domain.

Speaker 1: No, no. It’s open to the public domain.

Speaker 2: The decisors who lived in those cities said that it’s not a public domain.

Speaker 1: Also what’s not a public domain?

Speaker 2: And also if it’s very very large, you can say technically because the door is small and there are locked doors, but…

Speaker 1: Very good. So what’s the problem?

Speaker 2: I don’t understand, they learned strongly the Gemara from Mecholasa a private domain, if it’s a place of many, it’s open, it’s a public domain. It’s literally the word public domain.

Speaker 1: Okay, meanwhile we’ll hold okay. But okay, yes, not relevant, I have another less way, a bit. Not such a stringency. Okay, let’s go further with the laws.

Sixteen Cubits — Path and Place

Speaker 1: And also the Rambam didn’t say here the sixteen cubits, as if what happens even if the place itself is sixteen cubits wide, do the locked doors apparently help yes.

Speaker 2: Certainly, that’s again, we wanted to know how this became a public domain.

Speaker 1: Ah, the Rambam said sixteen cubits path. A place that’s not a path, doesn’t need to help the thing.

Speaker 2: What does path mean?

Speaker 1: No, when the Rambam says that sixty myriads makes a public domain, he says paths and streets of the public domain that are wide such and such. That a public domain itself doesn’t need nowadays to be but, or even it’s less, or it’s always more. One doesn’t know. What you’re saying is very unclear.

Let’s go further. For this one fights, or for this there’s a dispute about eruv in the large cities, about the public domain. No one knows.

Digression: Eruv in Williamsburg — The Story with the Doors

Speaker 1: But I also remember, and I lived on Rodney, and there was an eruv there all those years, because one had to bring up and carry in the French, as by all the Rebbes upstairs. And when they made an eruv in Williamsburg, there was a big commotion, and they started arguing with the judges, that if you say that one must be concerned about a public domain, then also your small alley is also open to the public domain. If one may not make an eruv over the whole city, one also may not make over an alley.

So one day huge doors came up on wheels, the judge, and it had about locking, and it was also very strange to me, because for sixty years one carried without this. So because it started becoming an open dispute, it’s already politics.

But ready, according to what you say, it’s not such a contradiction, because one can say that it’s like a street.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s a street with houses around from all sides, is it a street?

Speaker 1: No, that’s not how it was thought. At least one can say that it’s an open alleyway, that’s apparently how one thinks. But the question begins that it’s but open to the public domain. Let’s say that you say that the avenue is a public domain.

Speaker 2: Do I understand that for this the doorway form indeed helps.

Speaker 1: It’s certain that for this the doorway form helps. The problem is that there’s a pole, with other things.

Let’s go further.

Law: Carrying Under the Beam and Between the Posts

The Rambam’s Approach — Adjacent to the Public Domain

Speaker 1: What about the place under the beam itself, right? One made a beam or a post, the post is wide, let’s say a cubit, I don’t know, there’s enough place one can carry there. So the question is whether one may carry there. The entrance is wide.

One says that the Rambam nullifies the alleyway. One says that one may carry under the beam and between the posts, because the place already doesn’t start being effective after the beam, rather it’s already effective on the place. One already sees the place that it’s separated from the public domain.

Distinction: Adjacent to a Karmelis — Still Needs a Post

Laws of Lechi and Korah in a Mavoy — Materials, Measurements, and Physical Requirements

Continuation of Discussion: Between the Lechayim and Motzi Min She’eino Mino

Speaker 1: But the idea is certainly the idea. It’s harder to separate similar things than different things, therefore when it’s more similar one may not carry in between. But the Rambam said earlier that the lechi does make it into one reshus, only koros, only for a heter. So here too one should have to make a distinction, that when it’s a lechi, the lechi has made that other place into a complete reshus hayachid, why do you need to say that you’re chayav? But by a korah he could have said this motzi min she’eino mino, but by a lechi, why motzi min she’eino mino?

Speaker 2: I thought I remember that a lechi is not truly a reshus hayachid.

Speaker 1: The Rambam said that he’s chayav, he’s chayav, because zorek is chayav, they’re going to kill a person for this, and now you’re saying it’s not.

Speaker 2: I’m asking you a question, it doesn’t work, it just doesn’t work, right?

Speaker 1: Okay, but here it works. For this specifically it works, because it’s like in another… therefore, because it’s next to another…

Speaker 2: That’s also a weaker… because it’s next to another karmelis it’s also a weaker…

Speaker 1: Yes, okay. But essentially, my point is that the Jew stands under the lechi and is half here and half there, it should be correct, that’s the halacha, what else is relevant?

Speaker 2: It’s relevant to say that “bein halechayim” is something of a davar memutzah, not that the person should be in both, in reshus hayachid and in reshus harabim. It’s a different question.

Speaker 1: But one may anyway, because as said, because a person is half in the mavoy…

Speaker 2: It makes a new heter of agudah vetruck.

Speaker 1: Because there’s no other reality how the sugya should be relevant, except in a world where people walk around in mavoyos that are smaller than three tefachim. In the world of dwarves, but in the world of our humans and it’s not fair. Carrying has to do with the thing that one carries.

Speaker 2: Okay, let’s go to the previous place, to the Rambam with the Raavad.

Discussion: The Raavad’s Difficulty with Chozer Veni’or

Speaker 1: Look here again. The Raavad understood earlier that it’s always a reshus hayachid. He comes here with the… he tries here also to understand. Why will it be chozer veni’or? The ni’or is only if inside is a karmelis. The Raavad learned that inside is not a karmelis, he didn’t understand the Rambam, so he struggles here too.

Speaker 2: Ah, the Raavad. The Raavad says that tachas hakorah one may yes. The opposite.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Let’s go further. We’ll get stuck on a question that’s not so relevant. Let’s go further. Do you agree?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. Did the Rambam think up the Torah of chozer veni’or, or does it say in… the language chozer veni’or, is that the Rambam’s language?

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Speaker 1: Let’s go further. I want to go further, because it’s already… we’re already over an hour into the perek and we need to finish it.

Halacha: Bakol Osin Lechayim — Material for Lechi

Speaker 1: Bakol osin lechayim. With what kind of material can one make the lechayim?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: It says here: Bakol davar osin lechayim, even with something that has ruach chaim, even with a living thing one can make a lechi, va’afilu be’isurei hana’ah. Even with something that has ruach chaim, as we learned last night, a person or an animal, va’afilu be’isurei hana’ah, even things that are forbidden in benefit, which usually we know the rule is that something that is forbidden in benefit, for example, cannot be a kosher esrog. And I mean the reason there is because it says it has no shiur. But a lechi one can make, because a lechi doesn’t have a shiur. As the Rambam is going to say, that even the thing itself which is relevant to have a shiur, the lechi is kosher. Why? Because the nafka mina is, it’s omed le’isuro, and it doesn’t have a shiur. But a lechi, kol shehu, a lechi truly doesn’t have a certain shiur.

Discussion: Question from Govah Asarah Tefachim

Speaker 2: When one says that it’s a shiur kezayis, one says that this is no longer a kezayis because it’s going to be burned, but even if the fire from it… no, the fire from it… no, no, no. Govah asarah, it’s a good question, Rabbi Avraham. Govah asarah, one less than ten tefachim, ah? The height must be ten tefachim. Rochav ve’ovi kol shehu.

Speaker 1: What does it say here? Nu, nu, let’s finish the halacha.

Speaker 2: So here there is avodah zarah?

Speaker 1: No, no, the halacha, the halacha.

Speaker 2: Ah, I’m asking a question.

Speaker 1: Okay, okay, okay. The Raavad asks the question. So the next masechta you say it must be ten tefachim. So the width has no shiur, let’s say, but it’s not also ovi either. So what does it help that a mechitzah has no shiur in ovi, but it does have a shiur in govah? It’s a good question, yes. Do you understand my problem?

Answer: Distinction Between Shiur and Metzi’us

Speaker 2: The Rambam fits very well, because once we understand that it doesn’t need to be something something that one should see, it doesn’t need to have a certain shiur, but something that one can see. The thing can still be seen. Yes, it lies there, it’s a piece of wood from avodah zarah, and one can still see it. It means, even halachically it has no shiur. It means, the halachic geder can only take away from the shiur, it cannot take away from the metzi’us. Metzi’us is that there lies something that people can see. And the minute it has no shiur in the width, it only has a shiur in the height, there’s already a metzi’us that one sees it. It’s no longer a din shiur, there’s only a metzi’us that one sees it. And this has a metzi’us that one sees it. Ten tefachim is a shiur of a mechitzah usually. There is something that must symbolize a mechitzah.

Speaker 1: I don’t know, it’s something funny. The Raavad was a great Jew, he didn’t understand.

Speaker 2: He said, yes, the Raavad says what you’re saying. The Rambam says, the reason is not because it has no shiur, but because of heker, and heker one has even when it’s ten. That’s actually the Raavad’s pshat. That’s good to say the distinction between korah and lechi, but I mean, only according to the Rambam’s shita that korah is because of heker but lechi is not because of heker, that’s the question. And the Raavad certainly understood that the Rambam’s reason is not because of heker. The Rambam’s reason is kuli, since it’s eino ra’uy leshi’ur.

Speaker 1: One must say some such lomdus that it’s not a din shiur as you’re saying. One only speaks about the metzi’us. One only goes on the metzi’us of the Torah here.

The Maggid Mishneh’s Answer

Speaker 2: And the Maggid Mishneh says that whoever has learned geometry knows that a line has no width, it’s a theoretical line from geometry. And an eruv truly needs a shiur, and on this stands shiur, that the height should be ten tefachim. The Maggid Mishneh says, even if we look at it kemi shenisraf, that we already look at it now as if it’s burned, with the fire you also can’t make a line, it must stand. Technically you can’t.

Speaker 1: Something doesn’t fit me so well. But this is apparently the vort, that the halachic thing that it becomes burned only takes away the shiur, it doesn’t take away that one shouldn’t be able to see it. One can see it. But the Rambam doesn’t say that. I mean, unless you want to say that the Rambam also meant what the Raavad says, he just says that it’s a matter of eino ra’uy leshi’ur.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s not.

Speaker 1: And the next is, this we’ll learn when we’ll learn further… The Rambam puts it right after. I won’t fight with the Raavad here. I’m not scared of your question. Something, something is tzarich iyun.

Halacha: Shiur HaLechi — Govah

Speaker 1: Govah halechi, yes. Okay, simple. Govah halechi we learned, one less is this, vechol shehu. Okay.

Halacha: Mikol Osin Korah — Material for Korah

Speaker 1: Now we’re going to learn about the korah, what the korah must be made from. I need to make here essentially another… Mikol osin korah. Here he’s going to talk about korah. Lechi, ah, he divides completely between lechi and korah. Until now we talked about lechi, now he’s going to talk about korah. Mikol osin korah, aval lo be’asherah, because korah does have a shiur, usheyesh lah rochav hakorah shiur. Vechol hashiurim ein osin osam be’asherah. Anything that has a shiur, is it when it’s a… shiurim?

Speaker 2: Shiurim. I have a shiurim. A shiurim, not a shiurim.

Speaker 1: Every thing that is tzorech shiur when it’s a…

Speaker 2: Ah, it helps me with a shiurim because it’s like boser.

Chiddush: Opposite Logic Between Lechi and Korah

Speaker 1: But very interesting, because according to the Rambam from earlier, it comes out exactly opposite. They like to say that a lechi is real and a korah is only because of heker, but it should be exactly opposite. Because of heker must be a shiur, because of heker must be a shiur. Because of heker must be a shiur, because of heker must be a shiur. It’s exactly opposite. It makes sense, because a heker needs a shiur. Because a heker is built with people, a line that has no shiur, one speaks of such a din.

Speaker 2: But it’s true, that the Raavad apparently who says truly that it’s not… should apparently be a korah also, so the Raavad says explicitly, both lechi, both korah, muter… you know, the Raavad here?

Speaker 1: Yes. The Raavad truly says that he doesn’t agree with the Raavad Beinbi’s distinction.

Speaker 2: How did they…?

Speaker 1: Ah, what is the shiur?

Speaker 2: Yes, bekamah rochav korah, one less than a tefach.

Halacha: Shiur HaKorah — Physical Requirements

Speaker 1: So interesting he gives here an answer for everything… both things. He says always a reference to the matter of avodah zarah. They need there much more… but it had to stand earlier, when it stands… and so and so big. As here he says it… even if it’s a… but it must be strong. It stands berochav lekabel harochav. It must be strong enough, it must be just some piece of… It must be a strong enough thing that can hold on itself a roch, a brick. What is a roch? Shechatzyah ve’eini, of three tefachim by three tefachim. A small brick. Half of a small levenah. It must be a levenah. A… is half a levenah. A levenah is three tefachim by three tefachim. So this must be one and a half…? It must be a whole… It’s not if yes… in other words between you and me spoken. It depends, what is it made from? Iron, I know that.

Matter of Amudei HaKorah

Speaker 1: Ve’amudei hakorah, on which one holds the korah, tzrichin shetiheyu beri’im. They must be strong, kedei lekabel koach… levenah. Here you see that those holding the korah not in the korah not in the… If in lomdus it must be. It must be mamashus’dig that one should be able to place a… it should be ra’uy, just as ra’uy lanu’a, it should be ra’uy lekabel haroch.

Speaker 2: Interesting. Yes, camel. Camel, yes.

Measurements of the Opening of the Mavoy, Korah and Lechi – Laws of Eruvin

The Strength of the Korah

Speaker 1: It depends what he made the foundation. Iron, I know that.

Ve’amudei hakorah, on which one holds the korah, tzrichin shetiheyeh beri’ah kedei lekabel ariach shehu chatzi levenah. That is, the korah is not just that in lomdus it must be, it must be mamashus’dig that one should be able to place a… it should be ra’uy, just as really, that it should be ra’uy lekabel ariach.

Speaker 2: Interesting. Yes, go ahead.

Kamah Yehei Pesach HaMavoy – Measurements of Height and Width

Discussion: What Does “Pesach HaMavoy” Mean?

Speaker 2: I don’t understand what’s going on. How can it be? In the worst case it becomes a mavoy mefulash, which is helped by a tzuras hapesach. Ah, but here there is no tzuras hapesach. If the opening is so high, everyone agrees it’s invalid, you need to add something else, a korah.

Speaker 1: He’s saying, a mavoy, in order for it to be permitted with a lechi or korah, it needs to be within the constraints.

Speaker 2: No, he’s talking here about the side where there is an opening, not the side where you place the lechi and korah, right? He’s talking about “mavoy hanitur belechi o bekorah”, no difference which one. A type of mavoy that can be used, a mavoy she’eino mefulash, right? Or a mavoy mefulash where the other side has a tzuras hapesach. No difference. How high can you place the korah? The pesach hamavoy means the lechi and korah. That’s the fake pesach, yes?

Speaker 1: No, no, no, no. It means the pesach of the mavoy itself. How big can the pesach be? If the mavoy is smaller than ten tefachim, you can’t place any lechi or korah. If it’s greater than twenty amos, you can’t place any lechi. If it’s wider than ten amos, you also can’t place any lechi or a korah, you need to place something else.

We’re not talking about the lechi and the korah, we’re talking about the mavoy. About the pesach hamavoy.

Speaker 2: Why is there a symbol?

Speaker 1: What does it say? If you make a tzuras hapesach, you may. Tzuras hapesach means it’s connected, similar to lechi and korah. It’s not a lechi and korah, it’s a tzuras hapesach, a new thing. Yes?

Speaker 2: It doesn’t make sense. You need to translate it. This is the first mishnah in Eruvin.

Speaker 1: The question here is how high the korah needs to be, may be. It can’t be higher than twenty amos, that’s what it says here. And that the lechi needs to be at least ten high. The Rambam says here like this, “ten high regarding the lechi”. He says for example… He says here that the lechi needs to be ten tefachim high, and that the korah may not be higher than twenty amos. The korah needs to be visible, the korah shouldn’t be very high. He doesn’t say this clearly, that the problem… The Maggid Mishneh actually argues that you’re right, that for example more than twenty doesn’t interfere with the lechi, but it’s not clear in the Rambam, because what the Rambam doesn’t write clearly I don’t know.

One could say, it’s said like this, “not less than ten regarding the lechi, and some say regarding twenty amos regarding the korah”. That’s how the Maggid Mishneh says we need to interpret. It’s not… twenty amos wide is yes on both.

Speaker 2: In short, I know, I want to know how high should one place the korah. Because it’s also not pesach hamavoy, and at the same time he says if there actually is an opening you don’t need a korah. So, what is this pesach at all? Pesach means the entrance, how you go in. There where you place the korah. Where do you place the korah? You shouldn’t place the korah higher than twenty amos. It has nothing to do with where the pesach hamavoy is, it has to do with where the korah is. The korah that I said earlier you need to place, how high do you place it? That’s the question? It may not be higher than twenty. And the lechi that you place shouldn’t be less than ten tefachim. But the Rambam didn’t write this clearly, because the Rambam didn’t say this. You inserted other things that he says. What he did say is, a korah is something you place above the opening. A lechi…

Speaker 1: What does pesach mean? There is no opening. He’s going to tell you if there’s a tzuras hapesach. Pesach hamavoy means there where you enter into the mavoy. There’s a place that is open. The beginning of the place that is open he now calls the beginning of the mavoy, the way where you enter into the mavoy. Not pesach deles. Pesach doesn’t mean deles. So the pesach hamavoy is there where you enter into the mavoy, there where you place the korah. He asks, where should you place the korah?

Speaker 2: No, no, no. The korah should be placed not more than twenty amos.

Speaker 1: No, he doesn’t say that. A korah is something you place “on top” of the pesach.

Speaker 2: What does pesach mean? There are two walls, there is no opening. If there is an opening, then that’s a tzuras hapesach. You don’t place a korah in the middle of a wall, you place it “on top” of the wall. You must “connect” it to the wall so it should lie like a beam, somewhere higher than where you enter.

Speaker 1: He’ll say right away: if it has a tzuras hapesach, if there’s a door with a cover above it, it’s a door, it’s a tzuras hapesach. But pesach hamavoy means a place that is open. There are two walls on the two sides, and there’s a large open area that is open to the sky. Between the sky and earth you place a korah. Where? Under twenty amos. There is no opening. Pesach means where you enter. I don’t mean pesach what you call a door. Here we’re not talking about any door. Door, deles, door. Tzuras hapesach. Here there is no tzuras hapesach, there’s nothing from above, there are only two walls. Pesach hamavoy is the area in the middle of the two walls at the beginning, yes?

Rebbi, take out of your head the craziness that pesach means tzuras hapesach. Pesach is exactly what we learned earlier, as it was written. Yes? What is a mavoy that has a place where you enter and you exit? That’s the pesach hamavoy. There where you enter, that place shouldn’t be… that place is what? Shouldn’t be less than ten amos out.

Speaker 2: What? What? The air? Which thing? There’s no thing there, there’s no thing from above. There are two walls. The two walls can be as high as they want. The korah shouldn’t be higher than twenty amos, right? A person says, if the walls are very high, naturally you’ll place the korah on the walls. Says the Rambam, you shouldn’t place the korah on the walls. The korah needs to be under twenty amos. If the entire mavoy is smaller than ten tefachim for example, you can’t place a korah there. That’s what the Rambam says. Ah, sorry, a lechi. That’s what he says. The ten tefachim he says about the lechi, and the twenty amos he says about the korah.

Speaker 1: And he says this in two places, and from this is an interesting proof that he holds yes a pesach hamavoy. Because he doesn’t say what you would have wanted him to say, he says something yes. Because that’s what he means to say. What does pesach hamavoy mean? Pesach hamavoy is up to the sky, and that’s not tzuras hapesach. That’s very simple. If it has tzuras hapesach, that’s the area between the two walls. Pesach hamavoy is the area between the two walls where you walk in, at the beginning. There where he’s going to place either the lechi or the korah. That’s all, it’s very simple. There’s no difference on the halachah, it’s just an argument with the Rambam that you hold he wrote it wrong, and I hold he wrote it well.

Tzuras Hapesach Nullifies the Measurements

Speaker 1: However, when do we say this, what? That it must be less than twenty amos? Yes? Let’s say, shelo alsa tzuras hapesach. That the form didn’t have tzuras hapesach, you have a form without any tzuras hapesach. But alsa tzuras hapesach, even if it was a hundred amos high and a hundred amos wide, the Rambam says, if it has a tzuras hapesach, there aren’t any of the measurements. Not the measurement in height that is too high, not the measurement in height that is too low, not the measurement of width that is too wide. On the contrary, it’s a proof from this that you don’t need any lechi and korah either, because it has a tzuras hapesach which is lenient not any lechi and korah. And we already spoke about rochav what do we say, yes, he said that it needs to be rochav up to ten amos, if it has tzuras hapesach it can be wider than as wide as you want.

Speaker 2: Ah, but rochav up to ten amos, the entrance to the mavoy needs to be up to ten amos, or this is important, this is relevant besides the lechi and the korah. Rochav up to ten amos, the area between the two walls should be up to ten amos. That’s even if you have a korah and a pesach hamavoy.

Speaker 1: Ah, there isn’t, and rochav you, and rochav up to ten amos, that’s what the korah and the pesach hamavoy goes up, but rochav up to ten amos, how wide it needs to be between the two walls, because without the two walls there’s nothing at all, because he has after all because of them and tzuras hapesach, how wide may it be between the two walls, up to ten amos, he says. And that the korah comes out that the korah needs to be not higher than twenty amos.

Discussion: Why Isn’t a Korah a Tzuras Hapesach?

Speaker 2: But it’s interesting, because they already say that the korah is a tzuras hapesach, yes? If one holds that the korah is a tzuras hapesach, why shouldn’t it be able to be what do we say?

Speaker 1: A korah is not a tzuras hapesach, it’s not connected to anything around. A korah is only something that lies from above, it doesn’t have mezuzos on the side, no lechi on the side.

Korah Above Twenty Amos – Kiur and Tziyur

Speaker 1: Rabbi Chaim, he makes a way how you can make higher than twenty amos. Yes? If the korah has koras de’is bah kiur vetziyur, it has a picture on it, ad she’akev mistakeil bah, you look at it because it’s a design, yes, even above twenty amos yes the korah is valid.

The Rema says why. The Rema explains, the reason why it’s a problem is because you don’t see it, a korah is made for recognition. The korah we already, he already told us earlier that the korah is for recognition. And you should see it, and the problem of it lying higher above twenty amos is because it’s in the beams, it’s not noticeable. But when you have it with tziyur vekiur on it helps, as long as it has a tziyur vekiur, it has a design, and mistakhlim bah, you do look at it, therefore there’s no issue of recognition, there is recognition.

How to Calculate the Twenty Amos

Speaker 1: Good. How exactly do you calculate the twenty amos that the korah may not be higher? Mavoy shegavho min ha’aretz ad karkeisas korah esrim amah, the lowest part of the korah is within the twenty amos. But even if the korah is a very high korah, above twenty, it’s higher above twenty, but the beginning of it is in twenty, it’s valid. Makes sense, as said, because the main thing is after all the recognition, and at twenty amos you still see, “sholetes bo ha’ayin” as the Gemara calls it, the eye still sees. So the eye sees the beginning of the korah.

Laws of Mavoy – Laws of High Korah, Breaches, and Paths

Law: Mavoy Whose Height Is Above Twenty Amos – Law of Ivuy Korah

“But mavoy shegavho above twenty amos yema’et”, but “if it had ivuy korah, even a tefach”, that means the korah is not straight, but it’s like a “V”, “gavho min ha’aretz ad karkeisas korah esrim amah”, the lowest part of the korah is “within” the twenty amos, but “ovyah shel korah” – it’s a very high korah, “above twenty”, it’s higher above twenty, but the beginning of it is in twenty, it’s valid.

Makes sense, as he said, because the main thing is after all the recognition, and at twenty amos you still see, “sholetes bo ha’ayin”, as the Gemara says, the eye still sees, so he sees the eye the beginning of the korah.

Discussion: Measurement of Korah in Height

Speaker 1: Right, but this has to do with the fact that the korah doesn’t have a certain measurement, yes? There’s no certain measurement that needs to be the size of a measurement “within” twenty, but even if it doesn’t have a measurement, it’s in practice enough. What needs to be wide, but that’s not the problem, it’s in height.

Speaker 2: Right, in height it doesn’t have a measurement the width, the size, therefore even a drop of it is in the twenty is already enough.

Speaker 1: “Rochav arba tefachim”, by yes, by this there’s no problem, the width.

Discussion: Yema’et – Making Smaller

Speaker 1: Now how do you make smaller? That means, let’s say it’s a mavoy that was more than twenty amos, and he doesn’t have the ability to place a korah from above, he wants to place a korah from below. The mavoy will simply go less high, yes? And what does he do? He can do like this, “gavho min ha’aretz ad karkeisas korah”, the korah that lies above the entrance is higher than twenty, what does he want to do? He wants to add to this another piece of wood, that the wood will be lower, and it should still be within twenty.

He says, but the piece of korah… No, he wants to raise the floor, that’s what I mean.

Speaker 2: No, it means he wants to use the trick of “ivuy hakorah”, yes? He realized that he placed the korah higher than twenty, he wants to add another piece of wood, so a part of it will yes go into the twenty.

He says, but the part needs to be a tefach wide, it’s not enough that he adds in one place that it’s in the twenty. That’s simple, because every korah needs to be a tefach wide, so you want to argue that it’s…

Speaker 1: No, what can be said that once you could have counted even a bit of it, it touches a piece of it, somewhere, it’s in the twenty you see it, the eye already sees it.

Speaker 2: He says no, it needs to be the width of a measurement of korah that should be in the twenty amos.

Dispute of the Commentators: Korah Above or Below

Indeed, the other commentators learned that it means the korah on the floor. Korah on the floor, and here a lechi. What does korah on the floor mean? Not a lechi, a korah. He wants to make the floor higher. Instead of making the roof lower, he makes the floor higher. But then it’s the same law, it needs to be a tefach.

That’s what the holy… Ah, there’s a dispute about this. The Magen Avraham brings a dispute, meaning in the Gemara, meaning in the Rif, the halachah, what’s the meaning. But apparently both work. It’s only a question what’s the meaning.

Law: Chakak Bo – Mavoy That Isn’t Ten High

It will pull lower. Yes. If he dug in it a length of four amos by four amos, and deepened it to complete it to ten, it’s forbidden.

He says, what’s the solution? Instead of building from above, he builds from below. Here certainly he builds from below, he digs a pit. But then he needs to dig more, not just a tefach, he needs to dig four by four by four amos, and it needs to be ten… No, and deepens it to complete it to ten, it’s forbidden. Right, right.

Law: A Breach Was Made in It From Its Side Toward Its Head

Yes. Okay. What if… Yes. A breach was made in it from its side toward its head. That means, where was the breach made? In the lechi? Or in the korah? The mavoy is already breached, but what was breached? Where does it mean? What does it mean was breached? From its side toward its head. I mean it means like in the lechi, or something like that.

Speaker 2: In the lechi? Breached… Yes. Perhaps just like that in the mavoy, in the wall? Just a wall of the mavoy?

Speaker 1: That’s just laws of breach. We already learned earlier about partitions, what’s different here?

Explanation: Rosho – Pesach Hamavoy

So it’s interesting. Ah, if there remained standing at its head a post four tefachim wide, it’s permitted. Like ours presumably, but the word toward its head. Head of what? Rosh means what?

Speaker 2: Ah, he interprets that rosh means like the head. Rosho, the top of the mavoy?

Speaker 1: Yes, the pesach hamavoy is called the head of the mavoy, where you enter. It’s close to that. As long as there is… Ah, so the problem is like this, he opens a wall, right? So if there remained four tefachim at the end of the wall, it means after all like a mavoy that has walls. Right. As long as there’s no breach more than ten, which then we learned that it nullifies the partition.

And if there did not remain a section of four

And if there did not remain a section of four, there didn’t remain any section of four tefachim, there didn’t remain a significant piece of a wall, then it’s no longer called a wall. Unless the breach was less than three, if the breach is less than three tefachim, then even if the other side of the wall remained less than a section of width four, it’s kosher, because anything less than three is considered lavud, we don’t look at all like the wall is broken. But if it’s broken more than three, there must be at least a section of width four for it to still be called a wall.

Law: A Mavoi Breached Completely to a Courtyard

Okay, a mavoi breached completely to a courtyard. What’s happening? Next to the mavoi there is a courtyard. We learned earlier what is the difference between a mavoi and a courtyard. So next to the mavoi there is a courtyard, and the door opened between the two. And then, and the courtyard was breached opposite it to the public domain. That alone wouldn’t yet be a problem, because the mavoi is a private domain, or at least a karmelis that the Sages permit carrying in when there are our wings in the heights, and the courtyard is also a private domain, it wouldn’t be a problem. But the other side of the courtyard is the courtyard was breached opposite it to the public domain.

So until now it didn’t look like a mavoi mefulash, until now it looked like a mavoi that is closed, because it’s open only to a courtyard. But since now the courtyard has opened to the public domain, the entire courtyard gets a status of being somewhat open to the public domain, the mavoi also gets a status that it’s a mavoi mefulash. Therefore this is forbidden, like a mavoi mefulash, the mavoi needs something a door or a lechi and koreh, it may not be open.

But if the courtyard is fixed, the courtyard does have such a thing, why? “A courtyard of the public that they pass through, entering through this one and exiting through that one, it is a complete private domain.” A courtyard has a status that even if it’s completely open, it’s mefulash, people go through it from one side to the other, it’s still called a private domain. A private domain doesn’t need… the law that one needs a lechi and koreh is only by a mavoi, but by a private domain not. A private domain even if it’s mefulash is open.

Discussion: Difference Between Mavoi and Courtyard Regarding Mefulash

Speaker 2: It has four walls. A courtyard has four walls, it has a door. That’s the point.

Speaker 1: No, but perhaps because in a private domain there is only one courtyard with one house, because it’s obviously it belongs to one person, it’s one person’s. The private domain is only if it has a strong wall from all sides, that’s the point? Every private domain.

But the private domain is also mefulash, because it’s open to the mavoi and it’s open to the public domain. Every private domain, my private domain is also mefulash, it has a door on this side and a door on that side. Eh, let’s say the entire world goes through, doesn’t matter.

Speaker 2: A mavoi doesn’t have proper partitions. A mavoi doesn’t have proper partitions. A mavoi is essentially a public domain because there are several courtyards and houses there. One public domain walks through. There you have walls. Unlike a courtyard, even if people walk through, it has walls.

Speaker 1: Start from the walls, you always start backwards. First of all, a courtyard has walls.

Speaker 2: But we’re talking here about a courtyard that is mefulash, yes? Because it’s open to the mavoi and it’s open to the public domain.

Speaker 1: That means it has a door. It doesn’t mean there’s no wall at all on the other side. Not the courtyard breached completely. If the courtyard is breached completely is it also a courtyard? Is that what he means?

Speaker 2: I think he means breached, it became a door.

Speaker 1: The question is, the mavoi becomes mefulash, because a mefulash has nothing to do with whether it’s a whole wall or not a whole. Even a door can be called mefulash, it’s explicit by you in other places. But the courtyard doesn’t matter, a courtyard is not a mavoi, a courtyard is a courtyard.

Speaker 2: That’s what I would have thought. There isn’t by a courtyard such a law “courtyard mefulash” that would need partitions. Right.

Speaker 1: Ah, that’s it. Mavoi mefulash needs partitions. Why? Precisely because the world turns around there. Because mavoi is somewhat a public domain, because it’s open to several houses, and there are all the residents themselves is a bit of a public domain. But a courtyard, the public domain is only what people go through, and what people go through doesn’t yet mean anything.

Law: A Mavoi That Has Paths Mefulash to the Public Domain

Okay. Next law. A mavoi that has various alleys into the public domain, not just one, yes, but… a mavoi that has paths from this side and paths from another side, that are mefulash to the public domain, it’s open to more paths that lead to the public domain. Even if they are not aligned opposite each other, even if it’s not exactly mefulash to the public domain, because the path itself one still has to go somewhat like crooked, similar to crooked, yes. So the paths are crooked. Each one of them is a mavoi mefulash, each of the paths makes it into an extra mavoi mefulash. One must now place a lechi and koreh everywhere where it’s open to the path that leads to the public domain.

And how does one make it kosher? What he’s saying here is, that I don’t look only at the main mavoi. Let’s say, the mavoi has like a main middle of the mavoi, and there are more paths out. But the mavoi must be looked at in every place where it’s open to the public domain it must be considered extra. And how does one make it kosher? One makes a tzurat hapetach for each lechi and lechi from the paths that are on one side. A lechi and koreh didn’t help, because each one that is open to the path is also open to the main alley of the mavoi, and one must… It means it’s a mavoi mefulash, and one must each one a tzurat hapetach, not a lechi and koreh. Each one needs a tzurat hapetach on one side, and a lechi and koreh on the other side, so to speak. So that on one side it should become like a closed mavoi.

And therefore he takes, he makes a tzurat hapetach on each path on one side, even on the large opening. Why on the large opening one must make a tzurat hapetach I don’t know. And makes for all the paths that are on the second side a lechi and koreh. Why if the large opening is a path, why there may he also make a biur chametz on Pesach, that I don’t know. Do you understand my question?

Speaker 2: For some reason, something because those, all the small paths make the large one also like once you feel.

Laws of Mavoi — Triangular Mavoi, Mavoi Twenty Amot Wide, Laws of Lechi and Koreh

A Mavoi Whose One Side is Long and One Side is Short

Speaker 1: Even on the large opening. Why the large opening he must make a tzurat hapetach I don’t know. Why is there the leniency “two that nullified the third side for them is like a koreh”? Why if the large opening is forbidden, why must he also make a tzurat hapetach? That I don’t know. Do you understand my question?

Speaker 2: Ah, for some reason, something because those, all the small paths make the large one also into a mavoi mefulash, it just went out very much and all. Therefore, but, not clear. That’s what it looks like somehow.

Speaker 1: Okay. What happens with a sort of triangle the mavoi? One side is wider? Does aroch mean wide?

Speaker 2: Yes, apparently. One side aroch and one side short?

Speaker 1: No, not wide.

Speaker 2: Ah, from one side comes out a wall, the wall is longer. One side there is a longer wall, and one side there is a shorter wall. It’s not balanced, not a clear mavoi. He places it opposite the short one. There by the short one, there where the two walls begin. That’s what it looks like in the picture.

Speaker 1: So, because otherwise it’s not a mavoi. Is that basically the reason, right? It can’t permit otherwise, but when you build something a wall, but only here you have three walls, basically. What can’t you make crooked perhaps? I say so, placed on diagonal.

Speaker 2: Ah, he says that one can’t. Diagonally one can’t. Diagonally won’t help?

Speaker 1: Not clear. Because one must see two walls from the two sides. That’s what it sounds like. That’s what it sounds like.

Speaker 2: Yes. Tzurat hapetach one can make, but a koreh one cannot. So he brings from the Mishnah Berurah.

He Placed a Lechi in the Middle of the Mavoi

Speaker 1: He placed a lechi in the middle of the mavoi, he placed the lechi not by the door, but in the middle of the mavoi. So in the middle of the mavoi, the inner half, that is inside from the lechi, it is permitted to carry in it, as if there the mavoi ends. And the outer half, that is outside from the lechi, is forbidden. Makes sense.

A Mavoi That is Twenty Amot Wide — First Solution: A Section in the Middle

Speaker 1: He says, a mavoi that is twenty amot wide, and we spoke earlier that it’s not a door, or even if it’s a door it’s on Pesach, here we’re talking without. One makes a section ten tefachim high for four amot, one makes a section, a little line, a little partition in short, ten tefachim high for four amot, from the measure of the length of the mavoi, and places it in the middle.

That means, one makes a partition of four amot, which four amot is the minimum measure of a mavoi, and places it in the middle, and it is found like two mavois. Ah, we now need to make a new wall of ten amot, ten amot is what one can yes. How does one divide this? Must one build here a wall and make the twenty amot become two walls of ten amot. But one doesn’t need to build a whole wall, but it’s enough one makes a little wall that is ten tefachim high for four amot, even if it doesn’t run the whole mavoi, but it makes it like, one going in and out by the entrance, and when one sees a wall, it makes it as if the mavoi is divided and it’s two mavois of ten, and each one of them one can carry. And it is found like two mavois, that each one of them is less than twenty amot, and it is permitted to carry.

Second Solution: Two Sections from the Sides

Speaker 1: Or there is another solution. Or, he makes two amot from here, here you have the picture of the next one. Or the other solution is one should take a section that is three amot in width, yes, the section is in width three amot, and one places it two amot away from the opening, the right side and the left side. Ah, two sections one places.

He distanced it two amot from the wall of the mavoi, and a section of three amot, so the section divides it. One now looks only at the area after the sections, and the area after the sections is only ten amot, because one took off five from each side through three and two.

Discussion: Standing More Than the Breach

Speaker 2: Eh, there I see here a hole.

Speaker 1: The answer is, standing more than the breach. I would have said that there is the Maharil in Kesavim, why should I say standing more than the breach?

Speaker 2: Ah, very good, therefore one needed three against two, because the three is greater than the two, it’s more, and together they become five, and yes, very good.

Speaker 1: Standing more than the breach, one looks at it like the whole thing is standing, and one doesn’t look specifically at the breached part. As if it’s a wall, a wall has a hole, a wall may have a hole. Very good.

A Lechi Protruding from the Wall of the Mavoi / A Lechi Standing by Itself

Speaker 1: A lechi protruding from the wall of the mavoi, we spoke about a lechi, now the Rambam says that the lechi doesn’t have to be an extra piece of wood that one places, but if the wall itself has a piece that has a lechi, that sticks out by the side of the wall an extra lechi, it’s also kosher. It doesn’t have to be made for the sake of a lechi, he says. Yes?

I think that this is the next law, it says standing by itself. I think here protruding means that it goes the wrong way, usually a lechi goes in.

Speaker 2: Don’t agree?

Speaker 1: Not clear. Rashi says yes so. I thought that it means that a lechi usually goes into the opening, here it sticks out somewhat to the outside. It’s protruding from the wall of the mavoi, that means the wall is a bit longer. Perhaps it doesn’t mean that. Then it says further a lechi standing by itself, I think that it’s that it’s just a lechi, there was placed there a lechi, it wasn’t placed for the sake of the eruv, for the sake of the fixing of the mavoi.

Speaker 2: No, both is the same thing, it’s just a… If they relied on it before Shabbat. Both talks about the same thing, it’s just two ways. Sometimes he talks about one going to place down a stick, or versus when the mavoi itself is built that something sticks in. Both things is enough, because it’s a sign. Both is enough for a sign for a lechi, it’s like one should open something here. And since because one thought that this is the lechi, it’s kosher.

Discussion: Difference Between Lechi and Koreh

Speaker 1: On lechi it helps on koreh what we didn’t hold earlier, because it’s not a real marker, because it’s only a protrusion, one doesn’t need a mavoi.

Speaker 2: But lechi isn’t with the marker, but it’s with that there is something a change in the wall when one goes in.

Speaker 1: But if it’s a lechi, that’s the form. It’s not, it’s less protruding, eh I don’t know.

A Lechi That is Seen from Inside and Not from Outside (or Vice Versa)

Speaker 1: Okay. And a lechi, this is a new law. And a lechi that is seen from inside as a lechi, when one stands inside in the mavoi one sees a lechi, but from outside it is not seen as a lechi, when one looks in from the public domain one doesn’t see a lechi, because one sees it like something a continuation of the wall, and one doesn’t see that it sticks out.

Speaker 2: No, because from inside one sees… yes, here one must place the picture so one can see what is meant. I don’t understand from the picture.

Speaker 1: Perhaps it means that it’s not built, it’s built very similar to the wall, and one doesn’t see something the difference. Anyway, it’s also kosher.

Or vice versa, that is seen from outside, from inside it is not seen except like the measure of a small lechi, this is judged as a lechi. He has a better picture, the other person. Seen from inside as a lechi and from outside it is not seen as a lechi.

Speaker 2: Ah, in short, it sticks in. Because he doesn’t notice from the public domain.

A Lechi Below Three Tefachim / Distant from the Wall Three

Speaker 1: Okay. Another law. A lechi that would be placed below three tefachim. It’s less than lavud, higher to the ground. It doesn’t lie on the ground, but what it hangs, let’s say, or what. Or that it was distant from the wall three, that is more than three tefachim away from the wall, and three tefachim is still lavud, but it’s more than three tefachim away from the wall, it will not help at all, because it must be a part, it must be lively, it must be a part of the door. But if it was less than three tefachim, if it is close to the wall three tefachim, this is kosher, for anything less than three is like lavud. Like lavud. Lavud, what does that mean? We say we say it’s lavud. The Rambam says like lavud. Lavud is something a word. Lavud means something that is connected.

A Lechi That Was Four Wide

Speaker 1: A lechi that was four wide, a lechi that is wide. Whether it was wide less than half the width of the mavoi, even if it was wide like half the width of the mavoi, it is kosher and it appears that it is from a lechi. One doesn’t say that then it becomes something another law, it’s a wall. One sees that there is a kind of… it becomes bigger and better. But if it was more than half the width of the mavoi, then it’s no longer a lechi, it is standing more than the breach. It’s a new law. A new law. Then it becomes truly a wall. It has the laws of a wall. It’s certainly a closed lechi. A closed mavoi it becomes.

Speaker 2: Eh, that’s better, apparently.

Speaker 1: Not only closed, it becomes a closed mavoi from four sides, I mean to say. It’s obvious that it’s good.

Okay. Laws of koreh a bit. Yes. The Rambam must mean something. What is relevant to the law?

Speaker 2: What?

Speaker 1: If it’s… and it appears that it is standing more than the breach. What does he want to say?

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Speaker 1: Okay. Just brought out that it’s a stringency or what. Already.

A Koreh That He Spread a Mat Over It

Speaker 1: A koreh that he spread a mat over it. One placed a koreh, but in the middle one thought, ah, one can hang on this things. One hung on it a mat. He nullified it, he nullified it from the koreh, for it is not recognizable. One doesn’t see that here is a koreh, it’s covered. One thinks that it’s something a place where one can hang things there. Therefore, if the mat is removed from it three tefachim or more, one from outside, that means, he has his thoughts, but the mat can have a law of a partition. That would be good if it hangs exactly, it comes until the ground, it becomes a partition. But if it is removed from the ground three tefachim and more, there isn’t here lavud, there isn’t a partition. You don’t have a koreh and not a partition.

Speaker 2: Yes? But two foundations that stand like a ladder of a mavoi from outside.

A Koreh from Outside — A Koreh That Lies on Foundations Outside the Walls of the Mavoi

It seems like there’s a partition, but the partitions can’t actually be a partition at all. But it would be good if it hangs all the way down until it reaches the ground, then it becomes a partition. But if it is suspended from the ground three tefachim or more, and there’s no lavud, it’s not a partition. You don’t have a korah and you don’t have a partition.

Yes? So, you have two walls for a mavoi on the outside, and he placed a korah on them. He says, the korah must be such that it shouldn’t look like a roof, like the top of a tzurat hapetach. So if someone placed a korah on the outside…

Speaker 2: A roof, yes, a roof of a door.

Speaker 1: A roof. It must be a roof of the… of the mavoi, or touching the mavoi. The point is that it can’t… no, here he’s saying that it can’t be a… on the outside, where it’s placed. On top of foundations, “outside,” you see how he shows. That it’s not on top of the walls of the mavoi, but it sticks out a bit in front of it, as he shows here.

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: It’s adjacent to it, but it’s not… it’s not next to the floor.

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: Yes, good. Perhaps also one has three tefachim.

A Korah Extending from One Wall – A Korah That Doesn’t Reach from One Side to the Other

A korah extending from this wall, one places a korah from one side of the mavoi, but it doesn’t reach to the other side, it doesn’t reach from one side of the mavoi to the other, it’s only half a korah. Or two korot, one extending from this wall and one extending from that wall. From both walls a korah comes out, but there aren’t two long enough korot that they should touch.

If it’s less than three, if it reaches within three tefachim close to the wall, or they reach each other, the two korot reach within three tefachim close to each other, he doesn’t need to bring another korah, because lavud does the job. But if three, he needs to bring another korah. Because it must be one korah and it must reach across everything.

Two Weak Korot That Together Are Strong Enough

There can be another case like the same similar issue. We learned earlier that a korah must have, be strong enough that it must be able to hold an ariach, a piece of brick. So two korot that are weak, two korot that are weak, they come out from two sides, but neither this one can hold an ariach nor that one can hold an ariach, each korah is weak, but together they are strong enough to hold an ariach, between both of them together they are strong enough to be able to hold an ariach, we look at them as one korah, one needs to be another korah, because we look at them as one. We don’t say that each korah alone is nullified, together it means that they become together one korah.

Discussion: How Close Must the Two Korot Be?

That’s when they are one next to the other, how close they are one to the other. It must be close enough that a brick should be able to fit. A brick, apparently. They are within three tefachim.

Speaker 2: Who says weak means not within three tefachim?

Speaker 1: With the law of lavud, they are within three tefachim of each other. Okay.

Two Korot at Different Heights

If one was above and one below, there are two weak korot, but they’re not on the same level, one is higher than the other. We view the upper one as if it were below and the lower one as if it were above. We don’t do both, either or, yes? Because if we do both, the answer hasn’t started. Provided that the upper one is not higher than twenty and the lower one not lower than ten.

Discussion: What Is the Law of “We View”?

Speaker 2: What is this “we view”? Is this some kind of law of a type of law of lavud, or is it just enough a recognizable sign?

Speaker 1: Yes? Very good. And there shouldn’t be between this one and that one three.

In short, again, provided that the lower one is not lower than ten. The problem is that we want to connect two korot so that it should become one korah that has room for a brick, not room, strength for a brick. But, the problem is only that it’s not at the same height. So imagine that it is at the same height. But, as long as the upper one is in the place of connection, because if not we can’t count it, it doesn’t help me that it makes stronger the other pieces.

And yet, after you place it in, it should be within three tefachim of the second one. “And he shouldn’t bring three tefachim when they’re straight, making this one next to that one, and making this one intentionally, until making this one.” Then when one must move it, as if in theory one must move it, one must look at it as if it is in the measurement, one must look how it’s still three tefachim after you move it, after it lies in the place where it must lie, it must be within three tefachim of the other.

Right, understood, very good.

A Crooked Korah

What if he has a crooked korah? And therefore it doesn’t have the strength to hold a brick. In strength it can hold a brick, but it can’t hold a brick because it’s so crooked. We view it as if it were straight.

A Round Korah

A round one? Regarding size, only the strength matters. A round one, if the reason why it can’t hold a brick is because it’s not wide a tefach, yes, we look at the next tefach. We view it as if it were square, we make the vessel square, and therefore if it were square three tefachim, there is in it a width of a tefach. Because here there is a rule that, that means we don’t turn from the fact that it’s round, look at the measurement, if it’s wide a tefach in the diameter of the circle, yes, there is a rule that the circumference is three times as much, it means that you have a width of a tefach when it’s kosher.

Discussion: Why Do We Need a Width of a Tefach?

Speaker 2: Why do we need a width of a tefach? We only need in total that it should be able to hold a brick.

Speaker 1: No, it also must be a width of a tefach, we learned a measurement. Width.

Speaker 2: Why width? How does this come in again?

Speaker 1: There’s a measurement. A round one doesn’t have a problem, it’s not a problem with a round one, it’s only a problem that one can’t place a brick on it. It doesn’t have a measurement.

Speaker 2: No, no, no, it doesn’t have a measurement. The top of the circle is obviously with a tefach, it doesn’t have a measurement of width.

Speaker 1: Now that we view it as if it were square, it has a measurement. A korah has a measurement, a korah has a measurement of width of a tefach.

Speaker 2: You think so?

Speaker 1: Well, isn’t a round one wide a tefach?

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: Why?

Speaker 2: It turns.

Speaker 1: Your case is it’s round, from above it’s a point in the vessel, it’s round, a round vessel. We look at the width. Width means the breadth, not the length, right? A korah must be… what’s the difference if it’s wide? We’re talking here when it’s wide enough, yes? Even I say, how do we calculate if it’s wide? A round pole is not wide on all sides, right? It’s only wide in the middle. So that you need to know. You need to know how to calculate. So if it’s only a two-tefach-wide round pole, so what’s the problem? It’s not good, it doesn’t hold a tefach. It’s not a measurement of a tefach. It doesn’t have a measurement of a tefach.

Speaker 2: What’s the problem? It doesn’t have a measurement of a tefach in the width.

Speaker 1: It doesn’t have a measurement of a tefach in the width. It’s not wide a tefach. It’s not wide a tefach. It’s not wide a tefach. It lies on the two holes. One is the length, correct. Between the two holes is the length. The width means that it must be wide a tefach.

Speaker 2: And fit to hold a brick means the height, so to speak?

Speaker 1: No, fit to hold a brick is the strength. Fit to hold a brick is a law in the strength. Besides that it must be wide a tefach, as we learned earlier.

Speaker 2: It could be that the Baal HaBayit also said that one can technically place a brick, but besides that there is also a law in the measurement.

A Crooked Korah That Sticks Out from the Width of the Mavoi

Speaker 2: What if it was the inside of the mavoi like almost outside the mavoi?

Speaker 1: What do you mean, it’s crooked? It sticks out?

Speaker 2: Ah, so simple.

Speaker 1: It sticks out, that you have a crooked korah, it bulges out from the width of the mavoi, or above twenty or below ten, it’s crooked, it goes out from the place of measurement, from how big or how high or how wide and so on. So the law is, as long as if one would remove the crookedness, not remove and there isn’t between this and that three, he doesn’t need to bring another korah. That means, let’s say one removes the crookedness, and one only keeps the place where it’s straight, where it comes to the end, and it’s less than three tefachim crooked in brief, it’s very little crookedness. It doesn’t matter. He doesn’t need another korah. Granted he needs another korah, okay, but…

Speaker 2: Yes, I guess. It’s an interesting sort of use of lavud, but… as you know here, yes, basically, it sticks out, make me a picture. But it’s less than three tefachim, so it doesn’t bother me. I need, yes, it can even be empty, that’s the point. I need the crookedness, I don’t need to have any matter. And even if it’s empty is also good. It’s nice, it’s good.

Speaker 1: Yes, very good.

Beginning of the Laws of Pasei Beira’ot

Now we’re going to learn a law of pasei beira’ot.

Rabbosai, we’re now beginning a new section in this chapter. It’s a very long chapter, I mean perhaps the longest chapter in all of Shas. Is there another longer chapter somewhere? Until now there hasn’t been. Thirty-six halachot.

So, we’ve learned until now a law called lechi and korah, the permit of a mavoi, yes, lechi and korah, perhaps shitufei mavo’ot. Now comes in a new thing called in the Gemara pasei beira’ot.

What Are Pasei Beira’ot?

That means like this: There’s a place, there’s a well in the public domain, a well from which to water the animals, like by Yaakov Avinu, the animals come “ba’be’er yishku ha’adarim.” And actually it would be forbidden to drink, because it’s the public domain. The well is a private domain, because usually a well, if it’s deep ten and wide four, it becomes a private domain, and the animal that stands outside and drinks, stands in the public domain and drinks. So what’s the problem?

Because for pilgrims this had to be permitted. One had to give Jews a chance to go on pilgrimage, and they bring animals, and they can’t all go into a private domain, into a well. They need to use public wells. So the Sages thought of a way. What’s the way? Someone dug the wells, yes, Chananya chofer shichin he dug. And now one had to permit for the people to use this. So the Sages permitted that one doesn’t need to build a whole structure, make a proper private domain, when one can make such a kind of private domain, that it’s enough that one places pasin around and around the wells, with seeing exactly how the pasin should be, and that makes the place into a piece of private domain, and one can already, the animals can already drink from it.

Comparison to Mavoi

It’s interesting, because for a mavoi one made a permit of a lechi and korah, according to how the Rambam learned it, it turned into two opinions. The Rambam ruled stringently that from the Torah it’s permitted, and it’s only a stringency.

Pasei Beira’ot – Laws of Shabbat (Rambam)

Introduction: The Permit of Pasei Beira’ot Compared to Lechi and Korah

It’s interesting, because by partitions one made a permit of a lechi and korah, according to how the Rambam learned it, it turned into two opinions. According to the opinion that from the Torah it’s permitted and it’s only a stringency, according to that opinion it’s very different from pasei beira’ot. But according to the opinion that it’s the opposite, that actually it’s a karmelit, as we saw that the Rambam himself is actually it’s a karmelit, and the Sages permitted with weaker than a regular karmelit, it makes more sense, yes, but it’s still a leniency. One leniency on a Rabbinic law. Karmelit is also Rabbinic. It’s a leniency in a regular Rabbinic law, and here is a leniency in a regular Torah law.

Apparently the leniency is also apparently because it’s not that one must draw, it’s only filling for the animal, it’s only for the animals. One can see why one made a leniency, because of pilgrimage or because actually the essence of the melacha isn’t, no one stands and draws, it’s only the animal, perhaps there is a concern.

Law: A Water Well for Which They Made Eight Pasin

Let’s see. The Rambam says like this: A water well for which they made eight pasin. One made eight pasin. What is the word pas? Pas means a line in Hebrew, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Pas is a… from the language of piece, a small piece of wall, a piece of wood. At four corners, but eight such pasin, and he’s going to say how. At four corners, in the four corners, two pasin attached at each corner. That means, actually the eight will be, each one will be a corner, a total of four pasin that are squeezed into two. That means, the four corners are squeezed, and in the middle another whole one. Two pasin attached at each corner, plus another in the middle so it should be like a… a picture. These are like a partition.

What, nothing stands in the middle? These are like a partition. He makes from the four sides a… it should be like a partition, and the animal can stand in the middle of this, and… and… in short, instead of making a whole wall around and around, he only makes the corners of the wall. And each corner is two pasin.

Question: More Breached Than Standing

Oy, how does that help? It’s not a wall, it’s only pasin. You have more breached than standing on each and every side. Apparently a person could ask, when you place large pieces of pasin, you can actually allow it to be less than three tefachim between them, so it should be more standing than breached. But here where the area is open, you’ve only placed small pasin, so certainly there’s more breached than standing on each and every side.

He says, but since four corners are standing, in practice something of a pas stands at all the corners, so it’s permitted, one permitted that it becomes with this something of a piece of private domain.

And it’s permitted to fill from the well. Ah, it says yes, the person stands and fills from the well. The person may draw from the well, from the private domain, into the place that now also gets a law of private domain. It doesn’t mean that he fills from a private domain to the public domain and to water the animal.

Measurements of the Pasin

But how high should each and every pas be? How high should the pas be? Its height like a partition, ten tefachim. And how wide should it be? Its width six tefachim. Each pas… that means each side, or the pas that is divided? Each side, each side six tefachim. Six tefachim on each corner. That means two times six tefachim on each corner.

Measurement of the Breach – Thirteen and a Third Amot

And between each and every pas there may be a larger area. How large? That means, there may be more breached than standing, but how large? Like the fullness of two groups, as large as two groups. A group is a group of a collection of animals, of four by four cattle, one entering and one leaving.

The measurement that one made is, how large approximately must one be around the well? One made a measurement based on the type of user, that animals should be able to come. There one says that a group of four animals go in, one must leave such a place that a group of four animals should… two should pass through. Two, right. Eight animals should be able to pass through. Four go in. So in short, a width of eight animals. A width of eight animals. Yes, interesting. I don’t know why, because one must surely lead animals, and surely there must be an order of leaders.

And when one says that this is how large? Oh, the eight animals leaving, four go in to drink and four go out. That much space may be. That means, as long as it’s still the size of a breach, it means that one still looks at it as the pasin are still somewhat connected.

How large is this in numbers? He says, this width measurement is no more than thirteen amot and a third. Not larger than thirteen and a third amot. Yes, animals don’t have a measurement of four amot on each side, only people. Yes, it doesn’t fit me. So already, this is the permit of pasei beira’ot.

Substitutes for Pasin – A Tree, Stone, Mound, etc.

Passei Bira’os – Conditions of the Leniency, Special Laws, and Partitions Made on Shabbos

He says, haya b’makom echad min hazaviyos, if a person doesn’t have so many posts, but instead he wants to use something else. He stands at one of the corners, or even at all four corners, instead of a post, instead of some piece of wood that he places there – I don’t mean specifically wood, some piece of thing that he places there – there is something else. There is a neta, there is a piece there. There is even gedolah, there is a stone, a large stone. O ilan. O tel hamelakket asarah mitoch arba amos, or there is a mound there, but the mound is not very… we already had a tel hamelakket asarah mitoch arba amos, because if the mound is over a long period of time, you see it doesn’t look like a mound. But if suddenly it becomes higher, that within four amos there is a rise of ten tefachim, it’s a protruding piece of partition. O chavilei sulamos, all these things can also be used as a tzuras hapesach. Not only can it be used, then one doesn’t need to seek out such posts.

Ro’in, we view it k’ilu yechalek, if one were to divide the stone, half to this side, half to that side, yesh bo amah lechan v’amah lechan b’govah asarah… it should be larger than the passei bira’os. The passei bira’os is shisha tefachim is an amah. No, six tefachim is an amah. It’s the same thing. Aha. So each… I think earlier it was said that twelve tefachim is an amah? Ah, six tefachim is an amah, yes. Yes, it’s the same thing. The same thing. Nidon mishum zavis she’yesh bo shnei pasim. That means, actually it’s less of an issue, because it’s not… it’s not simple that there is on both sides such a piece of wall, and one can imagine that there is a wall.

Five Reeds – The Cheapest Way

Another halacha, another icon. One takes five reeds, v’im ein zeh lazeh shlosha, even if it’s not covered with reeds, but they are connected with the lavud, that means in less than every three there is a reed, v’yesh bahem shisha tefachim lechan v’shisha tefachim lechan between the five reeds together, nidon mishum zavis she’yesh bo shnei pasim. We look at our son, it’s considered like a corner that has two posts. This is apparently the cheapest way that one can make it.

Minimum Size – Rosho V’rubo Shel Parah

Yes. Further. Ah, how small may it be? There must be space, some area. How small may it be? On the contrary, apparently the question is how far may it be. A small reshus harabim in reshus hayachid is good. But yes, smaller should be even easier. There is a too-small problem. Okay. We’ll see why.

He says like this, mutar lehakriv arba zaviyos ha’ir zo lazo. If one wants to make a smaller area than the passei bira’os, one can make it smaller. How? But it must be large enough shetehei parah rosho v’rubo bifnim, v’hapo’eh mibachutz. The animal cannot stand outside. Let’s say if someone wants to make smaller posts, he wants to make such a thing smaller, and he thinks that it’s enough that he should be in the posts, he draws out, the animal will stick out. It doesn’t work. The cow must be rosho v’rubo bifnim, v’hapo’eh mibachutz.

He says, af al pi shelo yochaz rosh habehemah b’kli shebo hamayim, even if the person won’t be the one who will grab the head of the animal. There’s no place for that, that’s what he means to say. There doesn’t need to be any place for the person either. There only needs to be place for rosho v’rubo bifnim with it. Even a camel, which has a long neck… no, even for a cow it’s large enough, if it’s large enough for a cow, even a camel has a longer neck and it will indeed stand outside, it doesn’t matter, because for a cow it’s large enough.

The Measure of a Cow is a Fixed Measure

Hu karov v’hi rechokah, regarding the measure of rosho v’rubo shel parah, then even if we find even a large one that can entirely enter. The measure has nothing to do with reality, with actual animals.

Again, there is a measure for how small it may be. The measure that the Chachamim said is rosho v’rubo shel parah. Why did they make a measure in the smallness? Yes, apparently because of this, because usually it’s a cow, and they don’t want, we learned earlier that there is such a thing that one may not give an animal to drink when it’s in another domain, because it goes out and in. Is it a decree or because it looks like it’s standing outside? Or because it looks like it’s going to pull itself out. That’s what we learned before.

But here stands a chiddush, that there may be an animal that is larger, as long as the measure is the measure of a cow. Or conversely also, a stringency, if there isn’t the measure of a cow, one may not even give drink to a smaller animal that does fit inside. And the reason is as he brings from the Yerushalmi, that usually there were cows, most animals that need to drink on Shabbos is a cow, or the animals that people had during the aliyah l’regel, therefore one decrees on this that there shouldn’t be taking out, but because the decree was made on this, whether stringently or leniently, this is the measure.

Mutar L’harchik Kol Shehu

Yes? Yes. U’mutar, what does it say here? U’mutar l’harchik kol shehu. Ah, if one wants to make it even larger, we learned that it may not be more than thirteen and a third amos, that means two cows, two rivkos shel bakar, there shouldn’t be between the posts too large an area, but if one makes it even larger one must add more posts. Ah, mutar l’harchik kol shehu, u’vilvad sheyarbeh pasim peshutim, it shouldn’t be the corner posts, but the simple posts, sheyihyu nechonim zeh keneged zeh b’chol ruach v’ruach, kedei shelo yihyeh bein pas lachaveiro yoser al shlosh esreh amos v’shlish.

Fine. So kol shehu doesn’t mean here as usually kol shehu, how much less, but as much as you want, but it must conform to the percentages.

Three Conditions of Passei Bira’os

Now the Rambam will explain how came the great leniency, what is the explanation of this leniency? The Rambam says, heiter zeh lo hutar ela b’vi’as Eretz Yisrael, v’livhemah zo bilvad.

What is the third condition? V’sheyavo aleha ma’ayan chayim sheharbe.

There should be three conditions: it must be in Eretz Yisrael, and also then only for this animal.

Passei Bira’os – Conditions of the Leniency, Special Laws, and Partitions Made on Shabbos

The Three Conditions of the Leniency of Passei Bira’os

Speaker 1: Fine. So, kol shehu doesn’t mean here as usually kol shehu, how much less, as much as you want. But it must conform to the percentages in between.

Ah, now the Rambam will explain, from where came the great leniency, what is the explanation of this leniency. The Rambam says, “V’eimasai hitiru yefas to’ar? B’Eretz Yisrael, livhemos olei regalim bilvad, u’v’be’er mayim chayim shel rabim.”

There must be three conditions: in Eretz Yisrael, and also then only for the animals of the olei regalim, and it must be water of the public, and specifically a be’er mayim chayim, not just anywhere did they make this leniency.

Be’er mayim, not just a be’er mayim, be’er mayim chayim. Be’er mayim means fresh water? What is that? Yes, water comes. A be’er is where one holds water. A be’er is where there is a spring of water. Mayim chayim.

But he tells us why it must be these three. Ah, that’s the wall. The reason is because the Chachamim only permitted it from necessity when it’s lacking. That’s how it’s lacking. If it’s otherwise, it’s not lacking.

The Gemara has an opinion that also talmidei chachamim haholchim mimakom l’makom have the leniency of passei bira’os, but the Rambam doesn’t bring it.

Speaker 2: Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello? Yes. Sorry. Yes.

Yarad L’va’er V’yishteh – A Person Who Wants to Drink

Speaker 1: Further. But certainly, what happens when a person is on the way and he wants to drink? Yarad l’va’er v’yishteh. He should go down into the well. Literally go in? Or is it enough that he bends over, he’s higher than the well? I don’t know. Perhaps he can go down? Go down. A well is a thing, a place, it has a partition, he doesn’t crawl into the water. There is a place where he can go.

I don’t mean to say that he must now suddenly swim in a river, whatever. There must be some descent, and it must make some sense.

Oh. There’s another solution, that he can make a proper partition.

Ah, we spoke earlier… ah, so let him quickly make a partition. May one make a partition on Shabbos? Yes, we spoke that… this is another topic, a whole other matter.

If ya’aseh lo mechitzah mukefes l’va’er gevoha asarah tefachim, v’ya’amod b’socha v’yidleh v’yishteh, then he may indeed draw out and drink. So you see, the yeridah l’va’er means the drawing, if he can drink where he is bent over, u’mo’il v’hutrah hutrah, she’eino domeh l’adam sheyachol l’harchik, then they did permit it, v’rashai lidlos v’yishteh bein hapasim. Very good. You see that in a well it means in a manner where there is a place where one can stand there and drink.

The Difference Between Animal and Person – L’chatchilah and B’dieved

The leniency doesn’t mean categorically. Especially the leniency is that even when there is another way. By the animal we don’t say that it should carry and I don’t know what. By the animal they permitted it l’chatchilah, by a person it’s only b’dieved.

When One of the Conditions is Missing

U’v’hai gavna, bor rabim, not a be’er mayim chayim, but a bor, all these cases where it’s not the four conditions that he said, bor rabim, or be’er shel yachid not be’er shel rabim, or be’er yachid even in Eretz Yisrael, eino memalei meihem ela im ken asah lahem mechitzah gevoha asarah tefachim. They didn’t make the leniency, but he must make a partition ten tefachim high. And then there’s also not the answer of… there’s not the b’dieved of u’mo’il v’hutrah hutrah, it doesn’t stand.

It seems that that is when it’s in a well where there’s already the… because think about it, why did they make the posts? One only makes the posts in a manner that they permitted, and then, when a person comes, he can also do it b’dieved. But bor rabim they didn’t make any posts. Posts won’t help, because for this type of thing they never established any posts.

Speaker 2: No, there are no posts there. Who made it?

Speaker 1: No, I’m saying, if a person has posts and he wants to make posts by a bor harabim, we’ll say that for this thing they never established a leniency of posts.

Laws of Eivus (Trough) by the Passei Bira’os

Speaker 1: Already, very good. Memalei behemto bein hapasim, when he stands between the posts and he wants to fill, he draws out water for the animal, memalei v’nosein, he may fill containers with water, v’nosein b’chli shelifanav, he puts it into a vessel for the animal. V’im ein lo kli, nosein eivus, such a trough, such a how do you call it… from which one says such a type of eivus. So, storage, let’s say a container from which to draw from the well, to place in the eivus, there the animal can more easily lower its head and drink.

If the eivus, is rosho nichnas l’vein hapasim, if it’s ten high and four wide, if it’s ten high and four wide, lo yemalei v’yitein lifanav.

If it sticks out so that it’s in the reshus harabim, if it’s ten high and four wide, well it doesn’t become nullified to what, it’s a reshus hayachid, so it doesn’t matter, you’re actually doing better then. Lo yemalei v’yitein lifanav. Why? Shema yiskalkeil ha’eivus. Perhaps the eivus will become damaged, v’yotzei hadli l’eivus, and then when one goes to pour into the broken eivus, when the eivus will no longer be a reshus hayachid, it will go v’yotzei min hadli min ha’eivus, min ha’eivus l’karka reshus harabim.

Speaker 2: It’s clear. I don’t understand the whole thing…

Speaker 1: He says, when he sees it’s broken, he takes it and places it entirely in the reshus harabim, meaning the eivus will permit him, because it’s a large eivus he won’t realize that here it’s already in the reshus harabim, he’ll… it will be broken, that’s not placing the bucket on the side, he’ll think that the eivus is the place, something like that…

Then, in any case if it’s broken, he may not use a vessel before it, but he pours on the floor and it drinks, yes? Right? Nu nu. Already.

Hazorek Mereshus Harabim L’vein Hapasim – Chayav

Speaker 1: Hazorek mereshus harabim l’vein hapasim… ah… if he throws from the reshus harabim to between the posts, chayav! Ah… it’s interesting. Different from what we learned earlier, that when one throws between the lechi and the korah in the mavoy, one is patur, because it’s still not a complete reshus hayachid. Remember, by lechi one is chayav, by korah one is patur. Right?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: By korah one is patur, because it’s only a heker. But here it’s not only a heker, it’s like the lechi, chayav! Why? If it’s considered like a complete partition, what does it have that’s ten high and has four by four? It’s called and seen as a partition, one sees also that there is a partition, even though it has the leniency that it must be such, even though there are large breaches, yes.

Chiddush: Passei Bira’os is a Reshus Hayachid Min HaTorah

Now, if it’s like the guards of the city, reshus hayachid, it becomes truly a reshus hayachid, even regarding that one who throws from reshus harabim inside, has carried from reshus harabim to reshus hayachid. So it comes out from here a bit different than we said earlier, that means yes, that also by the passei bira’os min haTorah it’s already a reshus hayachid. And as we say apparently that the law that parutz merubeh al ha’omed nullifies the partitions, is miderabanan. Because min haTorah, it’s only the Rabbanan who don’t allow that it should be parutz merubeh al ha’omed, and in such a manner for the need they do allow it. So comes out here the calculation. He’s not so already obligated min haTorah, chayav I mean chayav chatas.

Speaker 2: Yes?

Speaker 1: He says clearly, afilu ein kan be’er, afilu b’vik’ah, even if there’s no well, still, the post makes it essentially a reshus hayachid. The post was only established for ah… to regulate the matters. Right, so one must explain there that not that they established, they allowed making parutz merubeh al ha’omed, which the Rabbanan don’t usually allow, and in such a manner they do allow it.

Speaker 2: That means in a karmelis one can do it l’chatchilah? Because what is in a valley, because it’s a karmelis, that’s what he’s saying?

Speaker 1: No, he says even in a valley he is chayav. It’s not the well that makes the problem here, not to say only there where the Chachamim allowed making such a thing by a well, then one becomes chayav. L’chumra he says it, that means even in the valley where one couldn’t use the passei bira’os, because they didn’t establish that the passei bira’os is already permitted, because it’s parutz merubeh al ha’omed. But the parutz merubeh al ha’omed is only a stringency. For what? But it’s enough of a reshus hayachid to obligate.

Rabim Bok’in V’ovrin Bahen – Doesn’t Nullify the Partitions

He says even rabim bok’in v’ovrin bahen, to nullify the partitions, the public that goes through doesn’t nullify the partitions, v’hara’ayah k’chut sherabim bok’in bo, so one goes through and is chayav. Very interesting. He has a bit of a contradiction. It must be that he’s speaking here of a manner that is permitted. It must be that he’s speaking here of a manner that is permitted.

“U’mutar l’hashkos habehemah beineihen im hayu sham beineihen be’er.” I already told you earlier that not. What is he saying here? Right, he may only… he means to say in that manner that is permitted? I mean probably.

Speaker 2: Yes. I don’t understand what he’s saying. “U’mutar l’hashkos habehemah beineihem, u’moshit lo be’er”.

Speaker 1: Ah, he means to say regarding the halacha. That which was said that the public doesn’t nullify, is even l’chatchilah, even one may, certainly in the manner that one may make passei bira’os it doesn’t matter that the public goes through, because it’s like a courtyard, and as was said that a courtyard doesn’t have rabim bok’in bo.

Chatzer She’rosho Echad Nichnas L’vein Hapasim

Speaker 2: Right. What happens literally here with a courtyard?

Speaker 1: Chatzer she’rosho echad nichnas l’vein hapasim, next to the passei bira’os there is a courtyard. That means the passei bira’os has already become a reshus hayachid, so this is a reshus hayachid next to a reshus hayachid. Mutar letaltel mitochah l’vein hapasim, u’vein hapasim l’sochah. But one needs an eruv, because one becomes nullified.

Right, that means two courtyards that need an eruv between them, because the psei bira’os is not truly a courtyard, it’s a reshus hayachid, but it doesn’t have the law of a courtyard. But two courtyards asurin zeh lazeh b’lo eruv, they need to make an eruv. What does this mean? Because the psei bira’os, because it’s open to two courtyards, it connects two courtyards, one may not carry in two courtyards at once. The simple meaning is, just as the psei bira’os is called enough of a reshus hayachid that it unites the two courtyards. When the two courtyards are both open to reshus harabim and there’s no connection, they are two separate courtyards where each one is permitted on its own. Because there was no path, one couldn’t carry, because there was reshus harabim in between.

Yavshu HaMayim B’Shabbos / Ba’u Lahem Mayim B’Shabbos

Speaker 1: Yavshu hamayim b’Shabbos, another halacha. Yavshu hamayim b’Shabbos from the well of water between the psei bira’os, asur letaltel bein hapsim, shelo nechshvu mechitzah letaltel b’socha ela mishum hamayim. That means the leniency that one may carry there and one may be metaltel there no longer exists.

What happens ba’u lahem mayim b’Shabbos? There was psei bira’os, there was no water, but suddenly water started flowing from the well of water. Mutar. Mutar letaltel beineihem. Take it, because when the water came it was machshir the mechitzos. That means it’s like mechitzah she’na’asis b’Shabbos, because with the water it was machshir them.

Kol Mechitzah She’Na’asis B’Shabbos Shmah Mechitzah

Kol mechitzah she’na’asis b’Shabbos shmah mechitzah. Very interesting.

Speaker 2: No, because what did he say? That now it received the leniency, you may use the mechitzos.

Speaker 1: No, he says now you’re making the mechitzos.

Speaker 2: No, regarding other things in the city, for example shevus, we learned how many people are in a place.

Hilchos Shabbos Perek 17 — Mechitzos, Shi’urim, and Conclusion of the Chapter

Mechitzah She’Na’asis B’Shabbos

Speaker 1: Mutar. Mutar letaltel b’socha.

True, he’s speaking with the Rabbanan. Because the water came, it was machshir the mechitzos. That means it’s like mechitzah she’na’asis b’Shabbos, because with the water it was machshir them. Kol mechitzah she’na’asis b’Shabbos shmah mechitzah. Very interesting.

This means that now it received the leniency that you may use the mechitzos. He’s not saying that now you’re making the mechitzos.

Speaker 2: No, regarding other things there isn’t. For example shvisah, we learned how many people are in a place, that’s spoken of from erev Shabbos. But mechitzah is even on Shabbos. We learned explicitly the halacha in the previous chapter.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Mavoy She’Nitlah Koraso O Lechyo B’Shabbos

Speaker 1: Mavoy she’nitlah koraso o lechyo b’Shabbos, a mavoy where the beam or the lechi that permitted carrying was removed, and on Shabbos it disappeared, asur letaltel bo. That means, we don’t say that we look at how it was when Shabbos began. No, we look the whole time. Very good.

Achsadrah BaBik’ah — Pi Tikrah Yored V’Sosem

Speaker 1: A few more halachos. Achsadrah is a place that has a roof. Something that has a roof, we’ve already discussed, cannot be a reshus harabim. A place that has a tikrah becomes a reshus hayachid. Achsadrah babik’ah becomes reshus harabim, becomes a karmelis if it doesn’t have mechitzos. Achsadrah babik’ah mutar letaltel b’chulah. That means, the bik’ah is a karmelis, and the place, the area in the karmelis is an achsadrah.

Af al pi she’ein lah shalosh mechitzos v’tikrah, even an achsadrah that isn’t completely surrounded, it’s not a complete house with four walls, but three walls, like a mavoy like that, is indeed permitted. Why? Anu ro’in k’ilu pi tikrah yored v’sosem. We’re lenient a bit, and we say that three walls are enough, and the fourth wall we view as if the roof comes down and makes a wall there.

Discussion: Pi Tikrah Yored V’Sosem — Reshus Hayachid or Karmelis?

Speaker 1: But, says the Hagahos Maimoniyos, we view it as a reshus hayachid. Don’t we say that if someone throws in from reshus harabim there, will he be chayav like zorek mereshus harabim lireshus hayachid, or is he patur? Why? K’zorek l’mavoy sasum sheyesh lo korah. They may have the law like zorek l’mavoy sasum sheyesh lo korah, which we say is mishum heker. It’s a… how the Rambam learned, ki heichi d’lo leisei l’achlufei, this is a type of karmelis that the Chachamim were more stringent about than the four amos.

That means, the… the pi tikrah yored v’sosem is as if, we don’t truly have the… how simply it makes it a karmelis, not a reshus hayachid. But pi tikrah yored v’sosem is a true law that can also make a sukkah kosher. It’s not something of a heker, it’s something of a true law of mechitzah.

Speaker 2: Yes, so it comes out here indeed interesting.

Bayis V’Chatzer She’Nifratz B’Keren Zavis

Speaker 1: Bayis v’chatzer, yes, another halachos of a breach. Bayis v’chatzer she’nifratz b’keren zavis shelo b’eser amos, a house or a courtyard where at the corner the wall opened ten amos, harei zeh asur letaltel bo klum. Even shekol pirtzah shehi ad eser amos k’pesach, even if it’s not more than ten amos, ten amos itself is already enough of a large breach, because at the side you don’t have a pesach. At the corner you need to have there a lechi or a korah. And we don’t have a korah milma’alah l’orech hapirtzah, ro’in osah sheyoredes v’sosemes, we view it as if it closed the wall. So, the same korah, sometimes we view it as if it makes a mechitzah, sometimes it’s only a heker.

Speaker 2: This is not a korah of mechitzah, this is a different type of thing, because this is not a mavoy. This is a problem of one opening b’keren zavis.

Speaker 1: Okay. This is basically the law of pi tikrah yored v’sosem. But I don’t have a tikrah here.

Speaker 2: Ah, the piece of korah itself is a tikrah. Pi tikrah is even from a small piece of roof.

Speaker 1: Right.

Shi’urei Etzba, Tefach, and Amah

Speaker 1: Until here. Now one can learn what is the shi’ur of an etzba. Okay, it’s calculated several times. Tefachim, etzba we also had this. I don’t know. But here he says, the Rambam doesn’t say everything. He says each thing only once. So, for example k’zayis we already learned earlier. He looked for a short opening, he wanted to be able to put it in.

Shi’ur Etzba and Tefach

Speaker 1: “V’ha’etzba shemesharin bah b’chol makom hi rochav hagudal shel yad.” The width… the length of an etzba is the width of a thumb. What? Of a gudal, yes? Of the… the etzba is it. “Etzba rochav shel yad.”

Speaker 2: “Etzba”? What are you looking at your hand? He says which etzba? A gudal?

Speaker 1: Ah, a gudal. Ah, I meant “rochav hagudal shel yad”. Ah, a gudal. “Rochav hagudal shel yad”, yes. Yes, we already learned this once. I just don’t remember where. We learned it explicitly the halacha already once, I remember.

Okay. Yes, we already had it. Where did we have it?

We’ll go further. Okay, wait, let me see it. “Kimlo zeh kaful, ses kaful”. Yes, we learned earlier by shi’urim. Ah, this is one gudal? I don’t remember.

“V’hatefach arba etzba’os.” It’s four of this.

Shi’ur Amah — Dechukos and Shochakos

Speaker 1: “V’ha’amah kol amah she’amru b’chol makom, chutz min ha’amah shemesharin bah meleches keilim, hi bas shishah tefachim.” An amah is six tefachim. That means, there is such a thing as an amah of five tefachim, but that’s not what we’re talking about. “V’ha’amah shemesharin bah hi bas shishah tefachim dechukos zo lazo.” He means etzba’os dechukos, yes? Tefachim dechukos. Okay. “V’ha’amah shemesharin bah hi bas shishah tefachim shochakos urechavos.”

“Zeh vazeh l’hachmír.” L’hachmír we use the larger tefach, I mean the larger amah, or the smaller one? “Keitzad? Meshech mavoy b’arba amos shochakos.” It must be large four amos. “U’vgovo eser amos atzuvos.” Happy amos or pressed amos? Rochav hapirtzah? Eser amos atzuvos. On the same, l’chumra, eser amos atzuvos. V’chein yotzei bo, regarding a small sukkah, that we need it to be large regarding a sukkah, and we’re stringent that even a small one is already invalid regarding small. Even the sukkah, here is the same thing, it can be too large, if it’s too large we need to calculate with a small shi’ur. If it’s too small we need to calculate with a large shi’ur. It depends which halacha.

Conclusion of Chapter 17

Speaker 1: Until here is chapter 17 of Hilchos Shabbos. It’s a very important chapter.