Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 363 - The Laws Governing a Lane and a Lechi

SECTION 363 The Laws Governing a Lane and a Lechi (1-44)

1 It was already explained in sec. 345[:6],1 that any place that has three walls, [even though it] is entirely open on its fourth side, is deemed a private domain in a complete sense according to Scriptural Law. [This applies] if [the fourth side] opens to a karmelis through which many people do not pass. [Moreover, this rule also applies] even when [the fourth side] is [entirely] open to a public domain,2 in which instance [this three-walled domain] is governed by the laws of a karmelis, for it is permitted to carry in a karmelis according to Scriptural Law, just as in a private domain. Nevertheless, the Sages forbade carrying in [such an enclosed area], whether it opens to a public domainor it opens to a karmelis, because it somewhat resembles a public domain, since [this private domain] is open in its entirety [on its fourth side].

For this reason, the Sages permitted [carrying in this domain] when one made any form of modification to the place where the wall is open, even when the modification would not be effective according to Scriptural Law,3 for example, placing a beam that is a handbreadth wide across the entrance of the lane4 that faces the public domain or the karmelis. According to Scriptural Law, the principle “the edge of the roof descends and closes off [the area]” cannot be applied [to such a beam, the rationale being:] since [the beam] is not four handbreadths wide, it is not deemed a roof, as stated in sec. 346[:8]. Nevertheless, [such a beam] is effective for a lane according to Rabbinic Law, because the prohibition against carrying there is only Rabbinic in origin, [having been instituted] because [the area] somewhat resembles a public domain. [Hence,] since there is a beam across its entrance, there is a distinguishing factor [which serves as a] reminder to observers that [carrying is permitted] in this lane because of this beam which is an ordinance of our Sages.5 [Accordingly, people] will not confuse [the entrance to this lane] with [an entrance to] a public domain.

Similarly, [the Sages] granted a leniency and permitted [carrying] in this lane when a lechi[i.e., a post] of [even] the slightest thickness and width that is [at least] ten handbreadths high6 is placed next to one of the walls at the entrance to the lane.7 [The rationale is that] this post is considered as a “wall”8 in a complete sense according to Scriptural Law in any situation where there are two complete walls as well as this post,9 as stated in sec. 345[:6]. It is only that the Sages [imposed a stringency] and forbade [carrying in an area with] two walls and a lechi and permitted [carrying in an area with] three walls and a lechi.

2 [The convention] permitting [carrying] when there are three walls and a lechi or a beam a handbreadth wide [may be employed] only in a lane. By contrast, when a courtyard is entirely open [to a public domain or a karmelis] on its fourth side, [carrying is] permitted only when a barrier [at least] four handbreadths wide is erected on one side of the open portion. If one desires to modify [the courtyard] on both sides of the open portion, it is sufficient [to erect] two barriers of any width, provided they are ten handbreadths high. [See figs. 58 and 59.]

A similar [leniency] applies if a four-handbreadth wide portion of the fourth wall remained standing on one side [of the open area], or a one-handbreadth portion remained standing on both sides [of the open area].10 However, when less than a handbreadth [of the wall remains on both sides of the open area, it is not valid, because] the remnants of a wall are not as distinctive as a [thin] strip that was erected [specifically as a barrier] for this purpose.11

3 Why did [the Sages] rule more stringently regarding a courtyard than regarding a lane? Because the more [an enclosure] is made for [the purpose of] dwelling and [conducting one’s] private affairs, the more substantial are the requirements for its walls. Therefore, courtyards, which homeowners generally use for private activities and to eat inside [its confines], require more substantial walls to be deemed a private domain than do lanes that are not used for private activities.12

4 The [abovementioned] modification is necessary even when the opening to a courtyard that is entirely open on one side is less than four handbreadths wide, unless [the opening is even narrower] than three handbreadths. [The rationale for the leniency is that] any space less than three handbreadths wide is considered as closed13 and does not require any modification at all. However, there are authorities who permit carrying in a lane when its opening is less than four handbreadths wide, as will be explained.14

If the opening [to the courtyard] is more than ten cubits wide15 – even if it is not entirely open and there remain, or one erected, protrusions on both sides, and even if [the width of] the projections exceed [the width of] the open space – [this fourth side is not considered as closed and] it is necessary to modify it by erecting a tzuras hapesach (a frame of an entrance), as explained in sec. 362[:18-19. This applies] both to a courtyard and to a lane, as will be explained.16

5 A lechi may be made with any object, even with a living animal,17 provided it is tied [in place] securely with ropes18 to a spike [that] projects from the wall of the lane in a manner that prevents [the animal] from lying down. [Tying it in this manner is necessary so that] the height [of the lechi] will not be diminished below ten handbreadths19 and [thus people] will carry in this lane though it is forbidden, [erroneously] relying on this lechi.

Even a person standing [at the side of the entrance to a lane] can serve as a lechi, provided he is tied there and provided he was not informed that he was positioned there to serve as a lechi. [The person must be tied, for otherwise,] he will certainly walk away, since he will not stand there the entire day, [and were he to walk away, people] would carry in this lane though it is forbidden.

If, however, [the person] was informed that he is being positioned there to serve as a lechi, there is no concern that he will depart [from his place during Shabbos]. (In that instance, however, [the person] must begin standing there on Friday. [The rationale is that] a lechi is deemed a partition,20 and it is forbidden to make a partition with humans on Shabbos unless it is made without their knowledge, as explained in sec. 362[:14].)

6 If a small portion of the wall [remains] on the fourth side, it can be considered a lechi, provided it is a handbreadth wide; [this measure is necessary to] create a distinction, as explained above.21 Even stones that jut out from the wall [and which are positioned] one above the other with less than three handbreadths [between them] can serve as a lechi,22if they are [each at least] a handbreadth wide.

7 A lechi that can be moved by an ordinary wind – even though [the wind] will not cause [the lechi] to fall – is not deemed a [valid] lechi.23[The rationale is that] a lechi is like a partition and a partition that will not stand firm in the face of an ordinary wind is not deemed a [valid] partition, as explained in sec. 362[:2].

8 If one positions the lechi three handbreadths from the wall, whether it was [positioned] within the space across the width of the lane, or past [the entrance of the lane] to the outside,24 his actions are of no consequence [and the lechi is invalid].25 [If,] however, [the lechi] is less than three handbreadths away [from the wall], it is [considered as joined to the wall, based on the principle of] lavud.

9 Even fragments [of objects] and the fragments of [their] fragments that are attached [to the wall] are valid for a lechi, as long as they can stand in the face of an ordinary wind.

For this reason, it is permitted to make a lechi from lime that is (plastered) on a wall, because the wall enables [the lime] to stand. [The above applies] provided one is careful to assure that [the lime plastered] onto the [part of the wall] three handbreadths closest to the earth will not dissolve. [The rationale is that] a lechi that is three handbreadths above the earth is invalid, as will be explained.26 Even though a trace [of the dissolved lime] remains visible on the wall, that is of no consequence, because a lechi must be an entity of some substance and thickness, and [must] project from the wall somewhat.

10 A lechi that was made from the wood of an asherah tree27 is valid.28 True, there are minimum dimensions that a lechi must have, i.e., it must be ten handbreadths high and have at least a minimal degree of thickness, and [there is a general rule that] any object [associated with ritual matters] that must be of a specific measure may not be made from the wood of an asherah tree. [The rationale for that rule is that such wood] is awaiting destruction by fire, and thus it is as if it has already been consumed by fire and turned to ash. Accordingly, it is as if its measure has been crushed [into powder]. Nevertheless, were one to attach these crushed pieces, i.e., mix the ashes into a blend [with water], it would be possible to make [a plaster] that would be ten handbreadths high and of minimal width. Hence, [the wood of an asherah tree] is valid [to be used for a lechi].

11 A lechi is valid [in all the following instances]:

a) Its projection is apparent to those standing in the lane, but is not apparent to those standing outside of it,29 i.e., one erected the width [of the lechi] along the length of the lane, but did not extend the edge of the lechi’s width at all toward the outside [of the lane]. Instead, [the lechi’s] outer edge is even with the thickness of the lane’s wall. Thus, it appears that one is adding to the thickness of the wall and it does not appear as a lechi from the outside. In contrast, its inner edge will be evident to the people standing on the inside, like this: [See fig. 60.]

b) Its projection is apparent to the people standing outside [the lane], but not to those standing inside, i.e., [the person] extended the entire lechi outside [the lane,] and its innermost edge [entered] the thickness of the wall. Thus, from the inside, it does not appear as a lechi, but as if one is extending the length of the wall, but from outside the [lane], it is evident that [the lechi] is not part of the wall, because it extends further than the thickness of the wall [of the lane], like this: [See fig. 61.]

There are, however, [other] authorities who maintain that a lechi that is apparent to those [who are] outside [the lane], but not to those inside [the lane], is only acceptable when it is visible to those standing outside, but next to, the inner space of the lane, i.e., the lechi that [the person] extended outward, and its inner edge [enters] the thickness of the wall [of the lane. The intent] is [that the person] did not position [the lechi] at the edge of the thickness [of the wall] on the side of the lane in a manner that it would look like an extension of the length of the wall to those standing inside the [lane]30 – for then it would also appear that way to those standing outside the lane but near it. Instead, [the person] erected the lechi at the edge of the thickness [of the wall] on the exterior side of the lane, like this. [See fig. 62.] (Fundamentally, the halachah follows this view.)31

12 [A lechi that is] elevated three handbreadths above the ground is invalid.32 [The rationale is that] a lechi is considered as a partition33 and a partition is not valid if it is three handbreadths above the ground, because goat-kids can pass under it.34

If one elevated [a lechi] less than three handbreadths [from the ground], it is valid even if [the actual lechi] is only a little more than seven [handbreadths] high. [The rationale is that] whenever the principle of lavud is applied, the [entire] space is considered as if it was filled.35

13 Even if a person did not position [a lechi at the entrance to a lane]with the intention that it serve as a lechi [to permit carrying in the lane] but it happened that a lechi was located there,36 it is valid.37 [The rationale is that, as stated above,] a lechi is considered as a partition and [any partition, even] one that comes into being as a matter of course, is valid.38

[The above applies provided] one relied on [the object to serve as a lechi] from Friday.39 If, however, [this object] was not relied upon [as a lechi] from Friday – e.g., there was another lechi [at the entrance to a lane] and it fell on Shabbos and [therefore on Shabbos] people sought to rely on [this object as a lechi for the first time] – it is not valid. If, however, there was no other lechi there on Friday, it can be assumed that [the people] relied on [this object as a lechi]even though they did not explicitly state that they were relying on it.

If, however, [previously the people] specifically did not rely on it – e.g., no other lechi was there [on the previous Shabbos] and, hence, they did not carry [in the lane] on the previous Shabbos despite the presence of this [object that could have served as a] lechi – it is not valid on the next Shabbos unlessthepeople explicitly state that they are relying on it before [the commencement of] Shabbos.

14 When a lechi that came into existence as a matter of course40 projects four cubits widthwise into a lane, it is not deemed a valid lechi even though before Shabbos people [intended] to rely on it [to enable them to carry on Shabbos.41 The rationale is that] four cubits is the full measure of a lane, and thus, there is nothing to distinguish [the object] as a lechi. [Although] this lechi is deemed a “wall” in a complete sense, nevertheless, it also requires some distinguishing feature [that will mark it as a lechi. Hence,] this lane requires another lechi for [carrying to be] permitted [in it. This lechi] should be erected on the side opposite the [existing] lechi. If one desires to position the [additional] lechi next to [the existing lechi, the new lechi] should be made slightly thicker or thinner than [the existing lechi], so that it is evident that [this object] is being erected as a [new] lechi and not [merely] as an addition to the existing [lechi].

When does the above apply? When the lane is more than eight cubits wide. When, by contrast, the lane is only eight cubits wide [or less], another lechi is not necessary [for carrying] to be permitted [within the lane. This applies] even if [people] did not [explicitly state that they would] rely on [the lechi] from Friday. [The rationale is that carrying in this lane] is permitted because the enclosed portion [of the fourth side of the lane] is the same size as the open portion, i.e., the lechi that came into existence as a matter of course is four cubits [wide], equivalent to [the size of] the open space between [the lechi] and the wall opposite it. And [carrying is] permitted in a lane when the enclosed portion of the fourth side is [the same size] as its open portion, just as [enclosing at least half of a wall of any of] the four sides of a courtyard [causes carrying to be] permitted [there], as stated in sec. 362[:18].42

All the above applies with regard to a lechi that comes into being as a matter of course. If, however, a lechi was purposefully erected, it is deemed a lechi even when it is wider than four cubits. [The rationale is that] it is a matter of public knowledge43 that it was constructed as a lechi to [permit carrying in] this lane, and [as such] it is identified [as a lechi] even though it is very wide.

15 [The Talmud44 speaks of] a lechi whose width extends along the length of the lane, i.e., one positioned its edge opposite the thickness of the wall on the outside. Thus, its edge does not cover the entire thickness of the wall, only the portion of the thickness [of the wall] that is on the side of the inner space of the lane according to the first opinion mentioned above (in subsection 11), or a portion of the thickness of the wall on the outer side of the lane according to the second opinion mentioned there. According to the first opinion, this lechi is visible and evident only to those standing outside the lane, but it appears as part of the wall of the lane to those standing inside [the lane]. According to the second opinion, it looks [like a continuation of the wall of the lane] to those standing behind the lane.45

[The following laws apply in such situations:] If the width of this lechi is four cubits, it is considered as [an extension of the wall of] the lane and is not deemed as a lechi even though it was erected to serve as a lechi for the purpose [of enabling carrying to be permitted. See fig. 63.] If [the lechi] is less than four cubits wide, it is considered as a [valid] lechi. One may, [however,] only use the space of the lane until its inner edge, because there is no wall opposite [its extension] on the other side [of the lane].46

16 (Even though a lechi must be recognizable,47 nevertheless, fundamentally, it is considered as a partition.48 [Hence, a lechi] need only be somewhat recognizable.49 Accordingly, [a lechi] is acceptable when it is within three handbreadths of [the walls of] the lane,50 even if it is [positioned] outside of [the lane]. In contrast,) a beam [that runs across the entrance to a lane enables carrying] to be permitted in the lane only ([because it functions] as a distinguishing factor. Therefore,) [the beam] must [actually] be placed on the walls of the lane. If, however, one embedded two spikes on the outside of the lane, even if they are in immediate proximity to it, and placed a beam on them, it is not valid.51

17 [The beam] must be placed [over the lane] for the purpose of [enabling carrying] to be permitted [in] the lane. If, by contrast, [the beam] was not placed [over the lane] for that purpose – even if [people] relied on it on Friday52 – it is invalid. [The beam] is not comparable to a lechi, for a lechi serves as a partition.53 A beam, by contrast, is effective solely [because] it functions as a distinguishing factor. [Hence, a beam] is not that much of a distinguishing factor if it was not placed [over the lane] for that [expressed] purpose.

18 The beam mentioned previously must have specific dimensions.54 Hence, if [the beam] was made from the wood of an asherah tree, it is invalid. Since [the wood] is awaiting destruction by fire, it is considered as if it has already been consumed by fire, and its required measure crushed.55

19 The required measure of a beam is that it must be strong enough to hold [the type of bricks called] arichim.56An ariach is [a brick] half the size of [the type of brick called] a leveinah. A leveinah is [a brick that measures] three handbreadths by three handbreadths. Thus, an ariach is three handbreadths long and a handbreadth and a half wide. [Hence,] it is sufficient for a beam to be a handbreadth wide,57 for then, it will be fit to hold an ariach; a handbreadth of the ariach will lie on [the beam’s] width and the remaining half of a handbreadth can be joined to it with a fingerbreadth of mortar on each side.58 The thickness of the beam has no required measure, provided it is strong enough to hold arichim that would be placed over its entire length. [The beam’s length] must be equal to the measure of the width of the entrance to the lane when attached there with enough mortar necessary [to hold it]. Were [the beam] not to be [this thick], it would not serve as a distinction, because the people in the public domain would think that it was placed there [only] temporarily. When, by contrast, [the beam] is strong and thick enough to hold building [materials], it is obvious and of public knowledge that [the beam] was placed there permanently.

Nevertheless, [the beam] need not be so strong that it is fit to hold arichim over its entire length. Instead, [it is sufficient if the beam] can hold [arichim forslightly less] than [that measure; i.e., a bit less than] one cubit may be subtracted from the measure of the width of the entrance to the lane. For example, if [the lane] was ten cubits wide, it is sufficient that [the beam] be able to hold arichim for nine cubits and a bit more on each side, which [amounts to] eighteen arichim positioned lengthwise. [The rationale is that] a beam nine cubits long with a bit more on either side enables [carrying] to be permitted [in] a lane that is ten cubits wide, based on the principle of lavud, i.e., [the beam] will be closer than three handbreadths to the walls on either side,59 as will be explained.60 [See fig. 64.] If, however, the beam is four handbreadths wide, it does not have to be strong enough to support arichim.61

20 The supports for a beam – i.e., in an instance where the beam is supported by spikes that jut out from the wall into the width of the lane – [may] not be more than a handbreadth wide,62 for if they are that wide, they themselves are considered [as part of] the beam.63 Nor may [the spikes] be three handbreadths long, for in such an instance, the beam [resting] on them does not cause [carrying] to be permitted in the lane, as will be explained.64

There are authorities who maintain that these supports must be strong enough to support the beam and the arichim [mentioned above]. Other authorities maintain65 that it is sufficient that the supports be strong enough to merely hold the beam, since, [in actual fact,] arichim are not placed on [the beam]. It was only the beam that had to be permanently affixed so as to serve as a superior distinguishing sign. In contrast, the distinction [brought about by the beam] is not dependent on its supports at all. (With regard to actual practice, [since the matter concerns] a ruling of the Sages, the more lenient opinion may be followed.)

21 If the beam was round, its circumference must be three handbreadths, for then it will be a handbreadth wide.66

22 If [the beam] was not directly horizontal and its meandering portion extends outside the lane, [see fig. 65], which is not the place for a beam to be placed, as explained above,67 or it curves below ten handbreadths or above twenty cubits [above the earth in the lane; see figs. 66-67], which are also not places where a beam is to be placed, as will be explained,68 it is viewed as if the curved portion was removed. If there are less than three handbreadths between the portions [of the beam that are in valid positions, the beam] is valid, based on the principle of lavud. If not, it is unacceptable.

23 If [the beam extends] from one wall and does not reach the other wall, [but reaches within three handbreadths of it] – and even if it does not reach either wall, i.e., it was placed on pillars near the walls, within three handbreadths of both walls – it is acceptable.69 Similarly, [when there are] two beams, one emerging from one wall and the other from the second, which converge in the middle of the lane, if there are less than three handbreadths between the beams, it is valid. If there are three handbreadths between them, it is not acceptable.

24 When two beams – neither of which were a handbreadth wide – were placed next to each other, it is not necessary to bring another beam70 provided: a) between the two of them, they are a handbreadth wide, and b) there are less than three handbreadths between them.

[Moreover,] even if one [beam] was on a higher level and the other on a lower level, it is considered as if the upper one is lowered and the lower one is raised [thus meeting in the middle],71 provided: a) the upper beam is not more than twenty cubits above [the ground], b) the lower [beam] is not less than ten handbreadths above the ground, and c) there are less than three handbreadths between them, both in vertical and in horizontal distance, i.e., when we consider it as if [the higher one] was lowered and [the lower one] was raised until they were on the same level, there would not be three handbreadths between them. If, however, there are more than three handbreadths of vertical distance between [the two beams], it is not considered as if [the upper one] was lowered and [the lower one] was raised. [The rationale is that this principle – that despite their difference in height the two objects] are considered as on the same level – is applied only with regard to an object that is a handbreadth wide, as explained in sec. 631[:6-7].72 In contrast, [only] when there are less than three handbreadths between them are they considered as a single entity [based on the principle of] lavud.

There are authorities who maintain that even if the beams are next to each other on the same level, their [width] is not combined to reach the width of a handbreadth unless they are next to each other within a handbreadth [of distance]. True, whenever entities are within three handbreadths of each other, they are considered as [a single entity, based on the principle of] lavud. Nevertheless, [the beams] are not fit to hold an ariach across their width unless they are within a handbreadth of each other, for then the width of an ariach can be placed on both of them, a fingerbreadth of it on one [beam] and a fingerbreadth on the other, with a handbreadth in the middle. If the beams are on different vertical levels, they are unacceptable in all contexts, because they are not fit to hold an ariach and it is not distinctly apparent that [the beams] were placed there permanently. This stringency should be followed.

25 If one spread a mat over the beam and [the mat] did not reach the ground but was more than three handbreadths above it, it is unacceptable. [The rationale is that the mat] covered the beam [to the extent] that it is no longer visible.73 [Hence,] it is no longer valid as a beam, since it is not discernible to an observer.74 The mat [itself] does not serve as a partition, even if it was attached in a manner that would prevent the wind from causing it to sway,75 since it is more than three handbreadths above the ground.76

If, by contrast, one placed a very thick beam that is ten handbreadths in height [over the entrance to a lane], it is not disqualified as a beam77 even though its height is equivalent to the height [required for] a partition, i.e., ten handbreadths. We do not say that it is like a partition three [handbreadths] above the ground. [To be valid,] however, the entire beam must be ten handbreadths above the ground. In contrast, when even a portion of a beam is within ten [handbreadths of the ground], it is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] since the space below [the beam] is not ten [handbreadths high], it is not termed a lane78 and a beam must be positioned above the lane [for which it was erected].79

26 [The following rules apply when] two curved spikes were embedded in the walls of a lane and their curvature projects into the lane, enabling [the spikes] to serve as an extension to – and to lengthen – a beam on both of its sides when it is placed upon [these spikes], but [the spikes themselves] are not fit to serve as a valid beam, for they are not a handbreadth wide:80 If a) their curvature does not project three handbreadths [into the lane, and thus] the halachic construct of lavud can be applied [so that] the ends of the beam [are considered as joined to] the walls, and b) the spikes are not three handbreadths higher than the walls [of the lane], it is acceptable; we consider the beam as if it has been placed on the walls of the lane.81 [See fig. 68.]

If, however, [the spikes] extend beyond three [handbreadths] from the wall, or they are more than three [handbreadths above the wall, the beam] is not considered as placed on the walls [of the lane]. True, whenever an object is a handbreadth [by a handbreadth] wide, we consider it as if [the object] had descended to a lower level – even if the descent is more than three handbreadths,82 as will be explained in sec. 631[:7].83 Nevertheless, [this does not apply] in this instance regarding a beam [over a lane. The rationale is that] a beam must be placed directly over the lane. [When that is not the actual fact, and instead, a halachic construct must be used to consider the beam as being positioned directly over the lane, that leniency] is applied only in an instance [where the beam] is less than three handbreadths [above the lane], for then [the construct of] lavud [applies].

27 When the entrance to a lane is more than ten cubits wide, neither a lechi nor a beam are [sufficient] to enable [carrying] to be permitted.84 Instead, a tzuras hapesach [is required].85

Similarly, when the walls of a lane are less than ten handbreadths high,86 (even though [the lane] is deemed a private domain because of the walls of the [surrounding] houses and courtyards,) it is not [halachically] categorized as a lane. [Hence,] neither a lechi nor a beam are [sufficient] to enable [carrying] to be permitted [within the lane]. (Instead, a tzuras hapesach [is required]).

Similarly, when a lane is less than four cubits long, it is not [halachically] categorized as a lane. Instead, it is governed by the laws [applying] to a courtyard. Thus, neither a lechi nor a beam are [sufficient] to permit [carrying within such an area]. Instead, [for carrying to be permitted,] there must be a barrier four [handbreadths wide on one side of the open portion], or two barriers of any width, [one on each of the sides].87

The ten [handbreadths] of the height [of a lane] and the four [cubits] of its length must be ample, not constricted.88 [Conversely,] the ten cubits of [a lane’s] width are measured in a constricted manner, [i.e.,] in all instances, the more stringent [measure is required].89 The difference between an ample measure and a constricted one is half a fingerbreadth per cubit.90

28 A beam [is not a valid means] to enable [carrying] to be permitted in a lane whose inner space is more than twenty constricted cubits91 high. [The rationale is that the halachic convention of] a beam is effective because it serves as a distinguishing factor,92 and it does not serve as a distinguishing factor at this height, since an eye does not focus [on an object that is] more than twenty cubits high.93 [Carrying in such a lane] may, however, be permitted by [erecting] a lechi.

If one desires to use [the halachic convention of] a beam to enable [carrying to be permitted within the lane], he must [embellish the beam] by making designs or forms [on it], for this will cause everyone to gaze at it.

If, however, the height of [the area’s] inner space is no more than twenty constricted cubits, even though the beam [itself] is higher than twenty [cubits], it is acceptable [and enables carrying within the area].94

29 When [the walls of] a lane are more than twenty cubits high and [one] built a structure beneath the beam on the lane’s ground to reduce the height [of the lane] in that place,95 it is sufficient that the structure be a handbreadth wide,96 equivalent to the width of the beam. A similar law applies if one places a handbreadth’s width of earth there. One must, however, be careful that when [people] tread on [the mound] with their feet, the height [of the earth] will not be reduced more than the measure required for it to reduce the height of the inner space of the lane.97

When, however, a lane is less than ten handbreadths high and one sought to make it the required depth by digging out [its earth], it is necessary to dig out a length of four cubits over the width of the entire [lane].98 [The rationale is that, otherwise,] since [the portion that was dug out] does not have walls that are ten [handbreadths high], it is not categorized as a lane at all.99 [Since one] is seeking to make walls for [the lane], he must make them over the required measure for the length of a lane – i.e., four cubits. In contrast, [this is not required] with regard to [a lane whose walls are] higher than twenty [cubits. In that instance, the passageway] is [already categorized] as a lane; it is only that [the height of the lane’s walls] must be reduced to enable [the beam to serve as] a distinguishing factor. [Hence,] it is sufficient that [the height] be reduced only under the beam, for this reduction suffices to serve as a distinguishing factor [for a person] entering the lane under [the beam].

30 [The convention of] lechi or a beam is not [a valid means] to enable [carrying] to be permitted in a lane unless [at least] two courtyards open up to it100 and there are [at least] two homes in each of the courtyards.101 [See fig. 69.] If there are fewer [than this amount of courtyards or homes, the passageway] is governed by the laws pertaining to a courtyard, i.e., there must be a barrier four [handbreadths wide on one side of the open portion] or two barriers of any width, [one on either side.102 The rationale is that] the fewer the residents [of an area], the more they will use [the area] for private purposes. [For example, the residents] will not be embarrassed to eat in [the area] or to use it for other private purposes. And the more an area is used for [private purposes], the greater necessity there is for its walls to be more substantial, as stated above.103

Even if many homes without courtyards open into [a passageway], and there are many courtyards which each contain only one home, they do not change the status [of the passageway. Instead, in order to qualify as a lane] there must be [at least] two courtyards with [at least] two homes in each [courtyard] that open up to [the area. The rationale is that] the Sages did not desire to deliver rulings that would not be universally applicable, [i.e., they did not want] to make a distinction between [a passageway to which] merely two courtyards [open], in which instance its [status] would not change unless there were two homes in each [courtyard], and [one to which] more than two courtyards [open], whose [status would change] even though there would be only one house in each [courtyard], or even if the homes themselves opened up to the lane. For this reason, all lanes [of the present age]104 are governed by the laws pertaining to a courtyard, as will be explained.105

[Even when there are at least] two courtyards that open up to a lane with [at least] two homes in [each of the courtyards] that open to them, it is necessary that each of [the homes and courtyards] have entrances that are no less than four handbreadths wide – [for an opening less than four handbreadths wide] would not be classified as an entrance at all.106 Moreover, there must be residents who eat in each of the homes, for the place where one eats defines [a structure as a home], not the place where one sleeps.107

Even if a father dwells in one home [in a courtyard] and his son in the other [home in the courtyard] – [and] even if the son receives portions from his father’s table and eats them in his own home – the [two structures] are still considered as two [homes] and [carrying] may be permitted in a lane [by erecting] a lechi or a beam [because of these two residents].108 Even though with regard to establishing an eruv for a courtyard, [these two homes] are considered as a single [dwelling] and do not cause [carrying in the courtyard] to be forbidden.109 Nevertheless, [in this instance, they are counted as two]. Since establishing an eruv [in a lane or courtyard] is a Rabbinic requirement, the lenient position is taken in both instances.

Similarly, when there is a lane with a courtyard belonging to a non-Jew and [a courtyard] belonging to a Jew at the other end [of the lane, carrying in the lane] may be permitted through using a lechi or a beam. Although the dwelling of a non-Jew is not considered as halachically significant when [doing so] would lead to a stringent ruling that would prohibit a Jew [to carry], as will be stated in sec. 382[:1], when [considering the non-Jew’s dwelling halachically as significant] leads to a lenient ruling, [the non-Jew’s dwelling is halachically significant and is] considered as a dwelling.

31 There are authorities who maintain110 that the two courtyards that serve as the basis that enables [carrying] to be permitted in the lane via a lechi or a beam must not have an opening connecting them to each other, for [without such an opening] they are unable to establish an eruv between themselves.111 If, however, [the two courtyards] have an opening connecting them, they are considered as one courtyard, since [the residents of the two courtyards] may make an eruv together and carry from one to the other without using the lane.112

The same principle applies with regard to houses in a courtyard: If there is an opening between them that enables [the owners] to make an eruv together and carry from one [house] to the other without using the courtyard, [the two houses] are considered as one house and they may not be used as a basis to permit [carrying in] a lane via [the convention of] a lechi or a beam. There are authorities who permit [using such courtyards and houses as the basis for enclosing this lane] and, fundamentally, the halachah follows this view.

32 [Carrying] may not be permitted in a lane via [the convention of] a lechi or a beam unless the length [of the lane] exceeds its width, albeit if only by the slightest amount.113 If, however, [the area’s] length is [merely] equivalent to its width or [the area’s] width exceeds its length, it is not [halachically] deemed as a lane. Instead, [the area] is governed by the laws pertaining to a courtyard, i.e., [carrying] is permitted only when there is a barrier [on one side of the area’s open portion] four [handbreadths wide] or two barriers of any width, [one on either side of the area’s open portion].114

When the length of a courtyard exceeds its width, even by the smallest amount, it is governed by the laws pertaining to a lane, i.e., [carrying] is permitted via [the convention of] a lechi or a beam, even though there are no [other] courtyards or houses that open to it. [The rationale is that] such a requirement was made only for a lane, because it opens to and is close to a public domain or to a karmelis. [However, the Sages did not institute these requirements with regard] to a courtyard, since it is distant from the public domain or a karmelis, [i.e., the courtyard] opens to a lane, which in turn opens to [one of] these [public places].

[Based on these principles,] carrying is not permitted via the convention of a lechi or a beam115 in all of the lanes of the present age – which are governed by the laws pertaining to a courtyard, since they lack courtyards with [at least] two homes opening to them116 – even when their length exceeds their width, inasmuch as they open up to a public domain or to a karmelis. Instead, [for carrying to be permitted in our lanes,] a barrier [on one side of] four [handbreadths wide] or two barriers of any width, [one on either side,] is required, if [the lanes] are not ten cubits wide.117

How much more so does the above apply in a city that is surrounded by a wall, and is thus governed by the laws pertaining to a courtyard.118 It is therefore necessary to modify the lanes that [separate] between the Jews and the non-Jews, as is the law when one seeks to divide one courtyard119 into two domains, so that one domain will not cause [carrying] to be forbidden in the other when there is no eruv.120For [when dividing one courtyard into two domains,] it is not sufficient to use the convention of a lechi or a beam, even though the length [of the domains] exceeds their width. [Support for this thesis can be taken from the ruling that] if there is a lechi or a beam in the middle of an actual lane and another lechi [or beam] at the entrance [to the lane], the lechi [or beam in the middle of] the lane is not effective [in creating a separation] whereby the residents of the lane on one side of the lechi do not cause those on the other side of the lechi to be forbidden [to carry in their side of the lane], as will be explained.121

When lanes are more than ten [cubits] wide, barriers are not effective for [permitting carrying in] them, as stated above with regard to a courtyard.122 Instead, [these lanes] must be modified with a tzuras hapesach.

The commonly accepted custom in these countries is to modify all the lanes by tying a rope over the width of the lane from roof to roof. This rope is not effective as a beam because it is less than a handbreadth wide. Rather, [it serves as the “lintel” of] a tzuras hapesach, for it is sufficient that [the “lintel” of a tzuras hapesach] be [insubstantial], even [as flimsy as] a bulrush stalk, as stated in sec. 362[:21]. Even though a tzuras hapesach is not necessary [when a lane is] less than ten [cubits wide], nevertheless, it has become customary to [employ] a tzuras hapesach [for all lanes. In this way, carrying] is also permitted in lanes that run from [one public domain to another] which require a tzuras hapesach [for carrying to be permitted], as will be explained in sec. 364[:3].123

Therefore, it is necessary to be careful to erect two reeds [at least] ten handbreadths high that are aligned directly under the rope [mentioned above. This construction] is effective in any instance where a tzuras hapesach is effective. Even though there is much empty space between the reeds and the rope, this is of no consequence, as long as [the reeds] are aligned [directly] under [the rope], as explained [in sec. 362:20].

There is an authority who maintains that [constructing a tzuras hapesach in such a manner is effective] only when there is nothing but empty space between [the reeds and the rope]. If, however, the reeds are standing below the roof [of one of the buildings] and the rope is tied above the roof, it is not considered a tzuras hapesach. [The rationale is that] in every tzuras hapesach, the lintel must be over the doorposts without anything else intervening.124 Therefore, [for such a construction to be acceptable,] it is necessary that one open a large aperture in the roof above the reeds so that they will be aligned directly under the rope without anything intervening between them. [See fig. 70.]

33 However, when there are no reeds under the rope, the walls of the lane are not considered as substitutes for the reeds to form a tzuras hapesach. [We are forced to accept this understanding:] Were this not true, why did [the Sages] require a beam that is a handbreadth wide? [Placing] a reed of any width over the walls of the lane would [have sufficed to create] a tzuras hapesach.

Nevertheless, if there is a pillar that projects from the wall or there are projections with less than three handbreadths [between each other]125 that reach within three handbreadths of the ground,126 one may rely on them ([provided that] from Friday,) [he had in mind to consider them] as the reeds [that form the doorposts] of the tzuras hapesach. [These projections are acceptable] as long as their tops are exposed under the rope, according to the authorities who require this.

34 A lane whose inner space is very wide, but which progressively narrows until its entrance is less than three handbreadths wide, does not require any modification [to enable carrying to be permitted inside. The rationale is that] it is considered as closed based on the principle of lavud.127There are authorities who [rule even more leniently], maintaining that any [passageway] that is not four handbreadths wide at its entrance – this being the minimum measure of a [significant] place – does not require any modification [to enable carrying to be permitted inside]. With regard to actual practice, [since the matter concerns a point of] Rabbinic Law, the more lenient view may be followed.

35 It is permitted [to carry in] a lane that opens to a public domain or to a karmelis that has a lechi or a beam [at its entrance] and [is structured in the following manner]:128 At the end [opposite] the opening, there is a wall from [at least one of] the courtyards that open up to [the lane]. On one of its sides, the garbage dump creates a barrier that is ten handbreadths high, and on the other side, there is a sea that reaches a depth of ten handbreadths within four cubits of the seashore, [which is deemed] a barrier.129 [See fig. 71. This rule applies] provided the garbage dump belongs to the community at large, in which instance it is not likely to be cleared away. In contrast, when a garbage dump belongs to a private individual, there is concern that he will clear out his garbage dump130 and yet people would [continue] carrying through the lane as it was originally [before its status changed].131

There are authorities who maintain that the sea is not reckoned as a barrier for the lane.132 This is a decree lest the sea wash up sand and rocks,133 for it is common for the sea to ebb, [the water] to be [replaced by] earth, and [for] sand and rocks to be washed up [onto the shore where the sea had been]. Thus, the barrier will be nullified, because the incline will have been reduced and will not descend ten handbreadths within [a distance of] four cubits. Hence, people would [continue] carrying through the lane as it was originally [before its status changed].134 Fundamentally, [the halachah follows] this view.

[The above applies only to the sea.] There is no concern, however, that other rivers will wash up sand and stones, unless the ordinary pattern of those rivers is to dry out in the summer and wash up these substances.

If the river freezes in the winter and [its water] becomes ice, its barrier is nullified and it is forbidden to carry in the lane as long as [the river] remains frozen.135

There is an authority who forbids [carrying in such a lane] throughout the year, lest one come and carry there in the winter as well, just as it is forbidden [to carry in a lane bordering on] the sea throughout the year lest one carry when the sea washes up sand and rocks. Similarly, [this authority maintains that it is forbidden to carry in a lane bordering on] rivers which [dry out and wash up sand and rocks] in the summer. It is desirable to give weight to his words.

All the above applies when there is no slope to the [area of the] river other than where the river flows.136 If, however, there is a descent of ten [handbreadths] within four cubits on the riverbank, that is considered as a barrier in all regards.137

All the above applies when the river or the descent on its banks is in direct proximity to the lane. If, however, [the river or the descent to its banks] is more than ten cubits away from [the lane, the river] is not at all effective [in creating a barrier]138 (unless a tzuras hapesach is erected there).139 [The rationale is that] this place resembles an opening for this lane. [Moreover,] even if [the river] is only four handbreadths from [the lane], it is forbidden [to carry in the lane] if many people walk there, as will be explained in sec. 365[:1] with regard to a lane that has an opening at its side.

(All the above applies when the river does not surround the entire town. If, however, [the river] surrounds the entire town, it is not deemed an effective [barrier] for [the town] at all, unless [the town] was settled and then surrounded by [the river], as will be explained.)140

36 [The following rules apply when] one side of a lane is long and the other side is short, even if the longer side is less than four cubits – the minimum length of a lane – longer than the shorter one: The beam [placed over the lane as a distinguishing factor] should only be placed on the portion of the longer side that is opposite the shorter side. [See fig. 72.] One should not, however, place [the beam] on a slant141 and use [the portion of] the lane on the longer side up until the [place where the] beam [is positioned. The rationale is that] a beam is effective because it serves as a distinguishing factor. [If the beam is placed] on a slant, it will not be effective as a distinguishing factor,142 for one who sees the people in the lane continuing and making use of [the area within the boundaries of the longer edge, but outside the boundaries of the shorter edge, i.e., using] the public domain or the karmelis beyond the shorter wall of the lane, will say that it is permitted to make use of the public domain or the karmelis, since that additional portion [under the beam] does not appear [to be] part of the lane.

If, however, one desires, he may make a tzuras hapesach at a slant. [Then,] it will be permitted to make use of the slanted portion, on the longer [side, in the area] opposite the longer [wall] and on the shorter [side, in the area] opposite the shorter [wall].143

If, however, [a person] would erect one lechi near [the end of] the longer wall and another lechi near [the end of] the shorter wall, [the two lechis] would not be effective in [allowing one] to make use of the slanted [portion of the lane]. True, a lechi is not only a distinguishing factor; it [also] serves as a partition. Nevertheless, the lechi that is on the side of [the end of] the longer wall is not effective in allowing one to make use of the area near it, because there is no partition opposite it.

37 The statement that a beam placed on a slant does not serve as a distinguishing factor applies only when [the beam is positioned] at the end of a lane that has one longer side and one shorter side, for the reason explained [in the previous subsection]. Inside the lane itself, however, one may place a beam on a slant and make use [of the slanted portion], on the long side, [carrying within the portion of the beam] that runs near the longer [wall] and [carrying] on the shorter side, [within the portion of the beam] that runs near the shorter [wall].

38 [The following rules apply when] a lechi is erected in the middle of a lane:144 If there are courtyards on the outer side of the lechi [facing] towards the entrance of the lane which open to the lane, and [the residents of those courtyards] also made a lechi at the entrance to the lane, the inner lechi is not effective in dividing the lane so that [the residents of] the inner courtyards and the outer courtyards would not need to join together in a single eruv, as is the case with regard to other lanes which have only one lechi at their entrance. [In those instances,] all the residents of [the various courtyards in] the lane must join together in [making] a [single] eruv, as will be explained.145 The statement146 that a lechi is considered as a partition applies only with regard to completing the necessary amount of walls required to establish a private domain in the complete sense. [A lechi] is not, however, a partition in a complete sense, to the extent that it can divide one domain into two. A partition in the complete sense is necessary to achieve that.

[The lechi in the middle of the lane does,] however, [serves as a divider] if the residents of the outer part [of the courtyard] did not make a lechi at the entrance to the lane.147 [In that instance,] since [the residents of the outer courtyards] may not carry from their courtyards to the lane even if they join together [to establish] an eruv,148 it [is] as if they have no portion at all in the lane on Shabbos. [The residents of the outer courtyards] do not cause [the residents of] the inner [portion of the lane] to be forbidden [to carry in the lane] even though [the residents of the outer courtyards] did not join together in [establishing] an eruv with [the residents of the inner courtyards. Instead, the residents of] the inner [portion of the lane] are permitted to make use of [the portion of the lane] from the lechi inward if they joined together in an eruv. [This only applies, however,]provided the inner portion of the lane will fit the [minimum] requirements for a lane, i.e., it will not be less than four cubits long and it will have houses and courtyards opening up to it, as explained above.149 [See fig. 73.] Similar laws apply if one places a beam across the middle of a lane.

[The following laws apply] if, however, two barriers of any width, one on one side [of the lane] and one on the other [side of the lane], or a barrier four handbreadths wide [located] on one side [of the lane] were erected in the middle of a lane. When the lane is not more than ten [cubits] wide or if a tzuras hapesach [was erected there] even when the lane is more than ten [cubits] wide, [the construction] is deemed a partition in a complete sense. It is effective in dividing the lane so that [the residents of] the [lane’s] inner [area] and [those of] the [lane’s] outer [area] are not required to establish an eruv together. [This is the case] even if [the residents of] the outer [area] also made a modification150 at the entrance to the lane, permitting them to carry within it if they established an eruv among themselves.

Even if a courtyard has many residents, they may divide it in such a manner so that they will not all have to join together in the same eruv. Instead, some [of the residents] will establish an eruv for themselves and the other [residents] will establish an eruv for themselves.

Similar [laws apply] with regard to a city surrounded by a wall [whose residents] seek to divide it or to make a portion of it fit [to carry within] and leave a portion of it [in a state where carrying is forbidden, as] will be explained in sec. 392[:5-7].

39 What should one do if he desires to [enable carrying to be permitted in] a lane that is twenty cubits wide by using a lechi or a beam?151

He should erect a barrier four cubits wide and ten handbreadths high152 [perpendicularly] in the center of the entrance [to the lane], with [the barrier’s] width running along the length of the lane. Thus, each of [the spaces on] the sides of the barrier will be deemed a lane in its own right, since [the open space on either side of the barrier is less than ten cubits wide] and the length [of the barrier] is four cubits, which is the minimum measure of a lane. [The person] should [then] place the beam on top of the barrier or within three handbreadths [of it. See fig. 74. The rationale is that] this barrier serves as a wall for these lanes, and a beam that is removed three handbreadths [or more] from the walls of a lane is invalid.153

It is necessary that each of the two (lanes) separated by the barrier have houses and courtyards opening into them, and [also] fulfill all the other requirements for a lane mentioned above.

A tzuras hapesach must be made between the barrier and the middle wall of the lane,154 even when there are no more than ten [cubits155 in the space between them. The rationale is that otherwise] each of these two lanes would be open to the other, and such an opening would be considered like an opening to the public domain, as will be described in sec. 364[:5] with regard to a “crooked” lane.156 There are authorities who maintain that it is not necessary to erect a tzuras hapesach [in that area] unless [the open area] is larger than ten [cubits]. One should act stringently, following the first opinion.

40 If, however, one wishes to position the width of the barrier across the width of the lane, it is not at all effective, even when the lane’s width will remain with much less than ten cubits [open] on one side and much less than ten cubits [open] on the other side. [The rationale is that] the open space of the width of the lane on its two sides nullifies the [presence of] the barrier in the middle.

What should be done instead? [The person] should leave a space two cubits [wide] from one wall and erect a barrier three cubits wide and ten handbreadths high [in that space]. [The person should] do the same [thing] next to the second wall, leaving an opening ten cubits wide between these two barriers. In this instance, the open space between the [two] barriers and the open space between these barriers and the walls do not nullify the presence of the barriers between them. [The rationale is that] each barrier is larger than the open space between it and the wall next to it.

Alternatively, [the person] should [leave a space of] one cubit [from the wall on one side], make a barrier one-and-a-half cubits wide, [leave another space] of one cubit and make [another] one-and-a-half-cubit wide barrier, and do the same on the other side. [See fig. 76.] Or [the person] should leave a space of two cubits and two handbreadths, make a barrier of two cubits and four handbreadths, and do the same on the other side. [The same pattern can be followed using other measures,] as long as the barrier will be larger than the empty space between it and the wall near it, for the reason that was explained.

In addition to these barriers, it is also necessary to make a lechi for the lane,157 because [none of] these barriers are considered as a lechi, since they are [more] than three handbreadths away from the wall.158

The residents of the lane must be careful not to cease using the large entrance between the barriers where the lechi was erected, and [rather] use the small entrance between the barrier and the wall. For if [they were to do] so, the large opening would no longer be deemed an entrance and the lechi erected [near it] would be nullified. Thus, this lane would be lacking a [validating] modification unless [one] erected a tzuras hapesach at the smaller entrance. It can, however, be assumed that [the residents] will not ignore the larger entrance and use the smaller one because it is an accepted presumption that people will not ignore a larger entrance and enter through a smaller one.

41 These barriers do not have to be solid blocks. Instead, [a barrier] is considered as if it is a closed and complete partition [even] if it is made up of [many] reeds, [as long as there is a space of] less than three handbreadths between [the reeds], based on the principle of lavud.159

42 [The following laws apply to] a) a lane that is level inside but descends at its entrance to the public domain, i.e., the ground of the lane is higher than the public domain and an incline is necessary at its entrance to the public domain, and b) to a lane whose [entrance] is level with the public domain but the descent into it is on an incline, i.e., the ground in the public domain is higher than the lane, and the entrance to the lane at its opening and [a bit of the ground] inside [the lane] are on the same level of the public domain, and then [the lane] descends on an incline toward the middle wall, creating a gradient: Such a lane does not require any modification at its entrance, because the incline at its entrance is considered as a partition,160 provided the gradient reaches a height of ten handbreadths within four cubits, as stated in sec. 345[:2, 13].

Nevertheless, if many people pass over [the entrance], it is forbidden [to carry in the lane161 without a modification]. (True, according to Scriptural Law, the fact that many [people] pass over [the incline] does not nullify its categorization as a partition162 and if there was an {area} [that measured] four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] that was {ten} handbreadths higher than the ground on all sides, it would be deemed a private domain in a complete sense according to Scriptural Law, and one who throws an object into [that area] from the public domain would be liable. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it is forbidden to carry [in such an area] when many people pass through it. Therefore, [such a descent] is not deemed as a partition for the lane according to Rabbinic Law.

Nevertheless, the Sages did not forbid [carrying in these circumstances] unless the amount of people who cross over [this entrance] is similar to the amount [of people] who pass through the public domain. When, however, there is less than that amount of human traffic over this gradient, it is permitted [to carry in the lane]. A decree [prohibiting carrying in this lane] was not instituted lest [one carry in a lane where] many people pass over the gradient [at its entrance], as was instituted for other places deemed a karmelis through which many people do not pass, [where this decree was issued] because of its resemblance to an actual public domain through which many people pass.163 [The rationale for the more lenient ruling is] that every [other place deemed] a karmelis does not have the [required] number of walls; thus, to a certain extent, it somewhat resembles a public domain. [The lane described] here, by contrast, has absolutely no resemblance to a public domain164 except the fact that it has a large amount of human traffic.165

According to the authorities who maintain that the human traffic in an area is not sufficient to have it classified as a public domain unless 600,000 [people pass through the area], as explained in sec. 345[:11], in this instance as well, the passage of many people through the entrance [to the lane] would not nullify [the incline’s] distinction as a wall (according to Rabbinic Law) unless 600,000 [people] pass through [the area] daily.)

43 (All the above [applies] when the gradient [serves] as the fourth wall for a lane. However,) if an entire town is enclosed by a gradient, and this enclosure existed before the town was built,166 the gradient is not deemed as walls for the town’s lanes. [The rationale is that] the enclosure resulting from the gradient is not “an enclosure [made] for the purpose of habitation,”167 since the enclosure existed before the homes were built. If so, the entire town is located within an enclosure that was not made for the purpose of habitation. [In such a situation,] it is forbidden to carry within [the area] if it is larger than beis sasayim.168

The walls of the courtyards that were built after the construction of the houses are only effective in making the area enclosed within them, i.e., the courtyards, [considered to be] “enclosed for the purpose of habitation.”169 However, the lanes in [such towns] are not deemed as “enclosed for the purpose of habitation” because of the walls of the courtyards [that also] serve as the walls of the lane.170

([Such a town] does not resemble a mound that is larger than beis sasayim that was not enclosed for the purpose of habitation and afterwards, [one] built or opened up a dwelling and then built a wall on top of [the mound] longer than ten cubits for the purpose of habitation. [In that instance,] the wall causes the entire [area] to be deemed “enclosed for the purpose of habitation,” as stated in sec. 358[:7, 16].171 [The rationale for the different rulings is that when a wall was built on a mound,] the wall was made in order to nullify the original enclosure that was not made for the purpose of habitation and, by [building this wall, the entire enclosure] is deemed “enclosed for the purpose of habitation,” as stated [in sec. 358:14]. By contrast, the walls of the courtyards were not built so that the lanes [in the towns] would be [considered as] “enclosed for the purpose of habitation”172 and so [these walls] would nullify the original enclosure173 of the mound, which was not made for the purpose of habitation.

Therefore, [the original enclosure] has to be nullified by [the erection of] a tzuras hapesach. [Such a modification] is as effective in causing [the encompassed area] to be deemed enclosed for the purpose of habitation as an actual wall would be, as stated [in sec. 358:8], and as will be explained in sec. 401:2.174

Alternatively, [carrying could be permitted by setting up] a barrier [on one side] four [handbreadths wide] or two barriers of even the slightest width, [one on either side]. True, [the barriers] are not effective in making [an encompassed area] enclosed for the purpose of habitation. Nevertheless, they are effective in dividing the domains as an actual partition would, as explained above.175 If so, the lanes [of the town] are set off from the “enclosure” of the mound by virtue of these barriers, as [the lanes] would have been divided were they to be surrounded on all sides by the walls of the courtyards, even though the walls of the courtyards also do not cause the lanes to be deemed enclosed for the purpose of habitation, for the reason explained [above].)176

44 (The same law applies when a river surrounded [the area of] a town before the town was built.)177

Moreover, a mound and river that do not surround the entire town may not even be considered as anything other than the fourth wall for a lane that does not open [to the mound or river on both of its sides]. If, however, a lane opens on both sides to a river or a mound that was not man-made, [the river or mound] is not effective in enabling [carrying] to be permitted [inside the lane] unless a further modification was made at one of its openings.

[The rationale is that] were 600,000 people to pass through this lane, it would be deemed a public domain in a complete sense since it has only two walls, one on each of its sides, for the fact that many people pass through the lane nullifies the dividers created by the river. [The rationale is that] since [these dividers] were not man-made, they are not deemed as a “wall” to the extent that they will not be nullified by the fact that many people pass through the lane.

True, in their own place,178 [a mound and a river] are deemed as [surrounded by] complete walls179 and they are not deemed a public domain even if many people pass through them, as explained above.180 Nevertheless, [a mound or a river] are not significant enough to [serve as dividers and] nullify the categorization of a lane as a public domain, [if] many people pass through [the lane].181 Accordingly, even if many people do not pass through this lane, it is forbidden [to carry in it] according to Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree, lest people carry in [a lane through which] many people do pass. In the same manner, [the Sages] forbade [carrying] in a karmelis through which many people do not pass [This is] a decree [instituted as a public domain [through which] many people do pass.

With regard to [serving as a] fourth “wall” surrounding the lane, by contrast, the Sages ruled leniently and maintained that a river or a mound would be sufficient. [The rationale is that] since in their place, [the river or mound] are deemed “walls” in a complete sense, [certainly.] their status is no less than that of a lechi of the smallest [width], which is deemed as effective [in forming] the fourth “wall” of a lane.182 [Moreover, these natural barriers possess an advantage over a lechi, as reflected in the fact that] a lechi is not effective in dividing one domain [into two], as explained above.183 [In contrast,] a mound does create such a division. [Since] a mound is effective in creating a distinction between the domain of the lane and the public domain in front of it, it is [surely] sufficient [to serve as the fourth wall of the lane. This ruling is further supported by a comparison to] a beam, which is effective [in enclosing] a lane only because as a result of it, it is distinctly obvious and apparent that the lane is separate from the public domain that is in front of it.184 Hence, a mound should certainly [be accepted as a fourth wall], for in truth, it creates such a separation between [the domains].