From Halachipedia

One of the 39 Melachot which one is prohibited to do on Shabbat is Hotzah, carrying from one domain to another. In general, one may not carry from a public domain to a private one, or visa versa. Additionally, one may not carry 4 amot in a public domain.[1] The definition of these domains and the exceptions under which a person may carry are described below. For a broader perspective about carrying on Shabbat and the modern Eruv, see our Introduction to the Modern Eruv. Regarding wearing a protective mask outside without an Eruv see Halachot_Related_to_Coronavirus#Eruv_Tavshilin_and_Eruv_Chatzerot.


  1. The source of Meleches Hotzah is a major machlokes Rishonim.[2]

Definition of the 4 domains

  1. There are 4 categories of domains on Shabbat: the Reshut HaRabim (public domain), Reshut HaYachid (private domain), intermediate area (Karmelit), and exempt area (Makom Patur).[3]
  2. A Reshut HaYachid is defined as an area of at least 4 Tefachim by 4 Tefachim surrounded by walls of at least 10 Tefachim. This includes a pit which is 4x4 Tefachim with walls of 10 Tefachim.[4]
  3. A Reshut HaRabim is defined as a street which is 16 amot wide. Some say that if there's not 600,000 people passing through it daily it's not a Reshut HaRabim.[5]
  4. A Karmelit is defined as an area of 4 Tefachim by 4 Tefachim with walls which are less than 10 Tefachim in height. It also includes areas where the public doesn't walk and doesn't have proper fencing such as fields, or rivers which are 10 Tefachim deep.[6]
  5. A Makom Patur is a place which is less than 4 Tefachim by 4 Tefachim but is of at least 3 Tefachim in height. They are only a Makom Patur when placed in a Reshut HaRabim, but in a Karmelit they are considered like a Karmelit.[7]

Moving a Key in an Entranceway

  1. If the entranceway in from of a house or building is 4 tefachim wide by 4 tefachim long in front of the door, has two walls on either side and a roof above it, it is a reshut hayachid. Alternatively, if it is 10 tefachim above the ground, and 4x4 tefachim, it is a reshut hayachid. If isn't so high, large, lacks the walls, or roof is considered like the domain that it is facing.[8]

Summary of Dispute Between Mishkenot Yakov and Bet Efraim

  1. Mishkenot Yakov[9] makes 2 independent arguments[10] to challenge all communal eruvin using tzurat hapetach.
    1. He[11] enumerates 16 rishonim who hold that reshut harabbim does not need a population of 600,000 including: Rif,[12] Rambam,[13] Rabbenu Tam,[14] Rashbam, Raavan, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ran, Hagahot Mordechai, Rivash, Rash, Riva, Ri Halevi, Mordechai, and Riaz.[15] Simultaneously, he argues that really only 5 rishonim hold that 600,000 is necessary including Smak, Smag, Sefer Hatrumah, Roke'ach,[16] and Maharam. Therefore, he holds that the halacha follows those rishonim who do not require 600,000. Therefore, our cities irrelevant of its population are a reshut harabbim and a tzurat hapetach doesn't work to enclose a reshut harabbim.
    2. Even according to those who require a population of 600,000, they agree that a wall of a tzurat hapetach is nullified by the travel of all the townspeople, even though they aren't 600,000. This argument rests on the assumption that we hold ayti rabbim umevatel mechitzta (heb. איתי רבים ומבטל מחיצתא; trans. the masses come and nullify the wall). This argument is predicated on the Hagahot Ashri.[17]
    3. To strengthen his point that even in walled cities a tzurat hapetach is insufficient to close gaps, he argues that a gap of more than 10 amot is deoritta. His biggest proof is that Yerushalayim is considered to be a reshut harabbim in Eruvin 101a and Pesachim 66b, even though it had walls.
  2. Bet Efraim's[18] defense of modern eruvin is that we follow Rashi that we don't have a reshut harabbim today because our cities lack 600,000 people and the Mishkenot Yakov's understanding of the Hagahot Ashri is incorrect. Furthermore, for walled cities he adds another argument to be lenient since we follow Rabbanan who hold that there's no ayti rabbim.
    1. Bet Efraim[19] counts 25 rishonim who hold that 600,000 is necessary for a reshut harabbim. They include: Bahag, Rashi, Raavan, Smag, Smak, Roke'ach, Maharam, Rosh, Tur, Mordechai, Sefer Hatrumah, Or Zaruah, Rabbenu Simcha, Rash, Hagahot Maimoni, Hagahot Ashri, Shibolei Haleket, Maharam Rikanti, Aguda, Isur Vheter, Hagahot Iser Vheter, Mahari Vayil, Trumat Hadeshen, Sedah Lderech, and Rabbenu Yerucham.
      1. Part of their argument in interpreting several rishonim revolves around how to understand the Ritva's explanation of Rashi. Mishkanot Yakov explains that even Rashi meant that 600,000 doesn't actually mean that they need 600,000 people there. It just needs to be a metropolitan area that is open to the masses to live there or visit there for commerce. Bet Efraim argues that the Ritva means that 600,000 do have to live there or travel there with some frequency. If there isn't 600,000 people who live or travel over a period of time[20] certainly it isn't a reshut harabbim. He accepts the Ritva's understanding of Rashi.
    2. Bet Efraim's tries to prove that we do not hold ayti rabbim umevatel mechitzta. Certainly Rambam held that we do not hold ayti rabbim umevatel mechitzta,[21] but he also proves that Rif and Rosh concur with this. Although the Ramban writes that Rif and by implication Rosh hold ayti rabbim umevatel mechitzta, the Bet Efraim disagrees.[22] By making this argument, Bet Efraim undermines Mishkenot Yakov's second argument altogether.[23]
      1. Additionally, Bet Efraim argues with Mishkenot Yakov's understanding of the Hagahot Ashri. According to the Mishkenot Yakov, it is a proof that even without 600,000 a tzurat hapetach is insufficient on the roads used by everyone in town. Bet Efraim argues that without 600,000 tzurat hapetach is sufficient.[24] In understanding the Maharam[25] and Ritva[26] there is a parallel dispute.
      2. Tangentially, Bet Efraim explains that the Rambam holds that it is sufficient to close off a reshut harabbim with doors that could close even though practically they don't close. Furthermore, he explains that perhaps Rif and Rosh agree with this. However, Shiltei Giborim, Tur and Bet Yosef 364:2 read Rif and Rosh as disputing this point.
    3. Bet Efraim denies Mishkenot Yakov's claim and holds that specifically within walled cities even a gap more than 10 amot is not deoritta. His answer for Yerushalayim is that it was only a reshut harabbim when the enemies knocked down parts of the walls and more importantly the corners.[27]

Aruch Hashulchan

  1. Aruch Hashulchan[28] explains that there is only one reshut harabbim in a town that is designated for all of the traffic. However, if a city is open in all directions then there's no singular reshut harabbim and all of the streets aren't a reshut harabbim. His proof is that in the desert the only reshut harabbim was machaneh Levi, but machaneh yisrael had many streets and so it wasn't a reshut harabbim. Also, our marketplaces aren't a reshut harabbim because there are stores also not in the marketplace, so the marketplace isn't a singular place in town for masses to do commerce.[29]

Chazon Ish

  1. Chazon Ish[30] holds if there are three walls of omed merubeh surrounding a street, that street is considered a reshut hayachid.
  2. Once it is a reshut hayachid, it is as though all of the 4 surrounding walls are closed with walls.[31] Those halachic walls then serve to transform the streets intersecting it into reshiyot hayachid as well.
  3. In the picture to the left street A is considered a reshut hayachid because it is surrounded with three omed merubeh walls. Then imaginary lines are drawn to enclose streets B, C, and D so that they're broken up in two and each side has omed merubeh on three sides.

Rav Moshe Feinstein's approach to Eruvin

  1. Rav Moshe Feinstein's[32] view was that it is impossible to make an eruv in a very large city such as Manhattan or Brooklyn. He has several specific reasons for his position and a general reason because it'll lead to mistakes in other places.
    1. The Rashba holds that any marketplace that is at least 16x16 amot is a reshut harabbim even if it is surrounded by walls.[33] He argues that according to one interpretation of Rashi even a city with walls and doors that close at night is a karmelit and an eruv is ineffective.
    2. Each of the bridges independently could be considered a reshut harabbim or at least a karmelit. On this factor by itself, Rav Moshe feels it would be acceptable to be lenient, but certainly it is proper to be strict in conjunction with his other reason.
    3. According to one interpretation in Rashi, it is impossible to make an eruv in a large city, so that people don't mistakenly extrapolate from there to allow an eruv in a reshut harabbim. That is why the rabbis of the mishna never made one in Yerushalayim.

Summary of Modern Poskim

Ramifications of Ayti Rabbim

  1. Several major rishonim including Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, and Meiri explicitly rule like Rabbi Yehuda. According to Ramban, this is also the view of the Rif and by extension the Rosh.[34] However, the Rabbenu Chananel,[35] Rambam, according to most commentaries,[36] Tosfot Rid,[37] Riaz,[38] Ravyah,[39] Sefer Hameorot,[40] Rav Ovadia Mbartenura,[41] and Tosfot, according to some, argue that the halacha follows Rabbanan.[42] Although Mishkenaot Yakov[43] and Rav Aharon Kotler[44] argue that the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda because of the Ramban and his understanding the Rif and Rosh, most poskim follow rabbanan.[45] That is the position of the Bet Efraim[46] and Chazon Ish.[47] Rav Chaim Volozhin writes that there is what to rely upon to follow rabbanan. Mishna Brurah seems to hold that we do not follow the rabbanan, but their view can be used in conjunction with other factors to validate an eruv.
    1. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Mishkenot Yakov argues that tzurat hapetach is invalid if it goes over a main street in the town.[48] Bet Efraim argues with this understanding even within Rabbi Yehuda.[49] Chazon Ish[50] is also lenient for a different reason.
    2. If there were pasi biraot surrounding the city, according to the rabbanan, according to the Bet Efraim, the entire town is a reshut hayachid and a tzurat hapetach eruv works. Avnei Nezer accepted this, but Mishkenot Yakov[51] and Chazon Ish[52] reject this concept for different reasons.
    3. If there are omed merubeh walls around a city, according to rabbanan, according to the Chazon Ish, the entire city is a reshut hayachid and a tzurat hapetach eruv works.[53] Bet Efraim and Mishkenot Yakov dispute this understanding even in rabbanan. Rav Moshe Feinstein,[54] Rav Aharon Kotler,[55] and Rav Yisrael Belsky[56] undermine Chazon Ish's position because walls constructed from buildings and other partitions with streets between them are considered omed merubeh. Some quote Rav Elyashiv as not allowing relying on the Chazon Ish's approach.[57]
    4. If an eruv is made completely of tzurot hapetach, according to the rabbanan, according to the Mishna Brurah,[58] the eruv is valid mdeoritta.[59] Mishkenot Yakov,[60] Bet Efraim,[61] Rav Moshe Feinstein,[62] and Chazon Ish[63] argue even within rabbanan.

Does Reshut Harabbim Depend on a Population of 600,000?

  1. According to Rashi, a perquisite for a reshut rabbim is that it has a population of 600,000. A slight majority of rishonim accept this position, however, many formidable rishonim disagree.[64] Shulchan Aruch, Chida, and Sephardim generally are strict for this view, however, there is what to rely upon even for Sephardim to rely on Rashi.[65] For Ashkenazim, however, Rama, Magen Avraham, and Taz accept Rashi. While Mishkenot Yakov rejects Rashi's view, Bet Efraim confirms Rashi's opinion. Rav Chaim Volozhin and Rav Moshe Feinstein accepted the minhag to rely on Rashi. Mishna Brurah writes that although no one should protest those who rely on Rashi, someone who is careful in halacha should privately be strict. Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler,[66] and Rav Belsky[67] were also strict.

How to Measure 600,000

  1. Who does the 600,000 include?
    1. It includes men, women, children, and non-Jews.[68]
    2. It includes travelers and tourists.[69]
    3. It includes people in cars or trains, according to most poskim.[70]
    4. It includes people in their houses, according to most poskim.[71] Rav Moshe Feinstein is lenient not to include people in their houses and therefore arrives at a conclusion that a population of 3,000,000 is necessary for a reshut harabbim.[72]
  2. Where in the reshut harabbim are the 600,000?
    1. Majority of achronim hold that as long as there are 600,000 people anywhere in the city every street in the city that fits the other criteria of reshut harabbim becomes a reshut harabbim. Some include even the population of the nearby cities that the city in question is open to.[73]
    2. Some achronim hold that only if there are 600,000 people in the area that the eruv encloses is it a reshut harabbim.[74]
    3. Some achronim hold that only if there are 600,000 people on a single street that street is not a reshut harabbim.[75]
    4. Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that only if there are 600,000 people within an area that is 12x12 mil is it a reshut harabbim.[76]
  3. Over what period of time is 600,000 calculated?
    1. Some achronim maintain that unless the 600,000 people are present over the course of one 24 hour day it is not a reshut harabbim.[77]
    2. Some achronim restrict this even further and maintain that unless the 600,000 are present for most of the hours of the day during which there is regular daytime activity, it isn't a reshut harabbim.[78]
    3. Some achronim argue that 600,000 need to be present over a long period of time, such as a year, in order to be a reshut harabbim.[79]
    4. Some achronim argue that 600,000 includes people over any amount of time as long as theoretically for a special event or certain need 600,000 could come there in one day. According to this suggestion almost any public street is a reshut harabbim.[80]
  4. The Ramban suggests that even for Rashi a highway outside of a town is a reshut harabbim even if it lacks a population of 600,000. Rosh disagrees and holds that according to Rashi a reshut harabbim always depends on a population of 600,000. Rav Chaim Volozhin[81] and Mishkenot Yakov[82] are concerned for this opinion, but Rav Moshe Feinstein[83] was not.

Gaps more than 10 Amot

  1. Mishkenot Yakov and Rav Aharon Kotler[84] hold that a gap more than 10 amot is deoritta. Chazon Ish[85] argues that a gap more than 10 amot is only derabbanan. Bet Efraim holds that a gap of more than 10 amot is derabbanan if there are corners of at least an amah.

Applications to Specific City Eruvin


  1. Rav Moshe Feinstein objected to any eruv in Manhattan because of specific issues with the walls and more generally because if they did people would mistakenly learn from there that it is possible to make an eruv in a reshut harabbim. Originally, he was willing to accept that others could argue with him,[86] after the 1962 agudas harabbanim convention which concluded that it was forbidden to make an eruv in Manhattan, he wrote this more forcefully that no one should make an eruv in Manhattan.[87]


  1. Rav Moshe Feinstein rejected the possibility of an eruv in Brooklyn because it had a population close to 3,000,000, which in his view would disallow relying on Rashi. Additionally, even if it didn't have that population it is still forbidden to make an eruv in such a big city because people will mistakenly learn from there that it is possible to make an eruv in a reshut harabbim.[88]


  1. Rav Moshe Feinstein allowed an eruv to be built in Kew Garden Hills.[89] He doesn't explain why it wasn't a reshut harabbim deoritta since within 12x12 mil there was a similar population as there was in Brooklyn, which he forbade.[90] All he writes is that it is a small town and the eruv didn't include the highways.


  1. Rav Ben Tzion Wosner[91] explains why he allowed an eruv in West Rogers Park, Chicago. His primary reason was that it had 3 walls because of rivers and trains and only needed fixing with tzurot hapetach in some locations. Additionally, he held that 600,000 is defined by the location that the eruv encloses and West Rogers Park itself certainly has a population less than 600,000.


  1. Rav Moshe Feinstein allowed making an eruv in Detroit because all of Detroit does not have a population of 3 million and the area enclosed by the eruv is nowhere near the amount of 600,000 so no one would mistakenly learn from there that it is allowed to make eruvin in big cities.[92]

Los Angeles

  1. Rav Ovadia Yosef[93] allowed an eruv in Los Angeles on the basis of numerous leniencies in eruvin. He quotes the Chazon Ish regarding omed merubeh, Yeshuot Malko about cars and trains, as well as the Mishna Brurah's approach within Rambam. He doesn't indicate which of the above leniencies is the primary one but altogether he felt that there is room, even for Sephardim, to rely on an eruv even in a very large city such as LA.
  2. Rav Zundel Kroizer supervised the first LA eruv and when he asked Rav Moshe Feinstein he didn't approve because it relied on the Chazon Ish's view on omed merubeh.[94] Rav Pinchos Gruman writes that Rav Moshe Feinstein never forbade making an eruv in LA. In fact, he said that someone who wishes has what to rely upon to rely on it, but someone who wants to be strict may be.[95]

Where is it forbidden to carry?

  1. It is forbidden to carry, pass, or throw an object in a Reshut HaRabim or Karmelit.[96]
  2. It is forbidden to carry from Reshut HaYachid to Reshut HaRabim or a Karmelit, from a Reshut HaRabim or Karmelit to a Reshut HaYachid, from Reshut HaRabim to a Karmelit, or from a Karmelit to a Reshut HaRabim. It is permissible to carry from a Makom Patur to a Reshut HaYchid, Reshut HaRabim, or Karmelit and from these areas to a Makom Patur as long as one doesn't carry 4 amot in a Reshut HaRabim or Karmelit.[97]
  3. Because there are a lot of detailed and complicated halachot in defining these 4 domains, in a city where there's no Eruv, someone who isn't an expert shouldn't carry into another domain unless one knows for certain that it's permissible.[98]
  4. It is permitted to carry from a private or public domain to an exempt area or from an exempt area to a private or public domain. However, one may not carry from a private domain to a public domain through an exempt area or visa versa. Similarly, one may not stand in an exempt area and transfer an item from a private domain to a public domain via the exempt area or visa versa.[99]
  5. There is a dispute whether it is permitted to stand in an exempt area and transfer an item from a private domain to a Karmelit or visa versa. Similarly, there is a dispute whether it is permitted to carry from a private domain to a Karmelit or Karmelit to a private domain via an exempt area. Many poskim write that one should be strict about this case.[100]

Modern Day Eruv

  1. Many poskim hold that it is permissible to carry on Shabbat within an eruv. However, some poskim disagree and wouldn't allow carrying in any eruv. Sephardim are initially strict not to carry in an eruv when possible but have what to rely upon to be lenient if there is a serious need to carry within the eruv.[101]

Tzurat Hapetach

  1. A tzurat hapetach is a doorframe made up of two side posts and a lintel on top. It doesn't need to be possible to actually hang a door in the tzurat hapetach.[102]
  2. It is permitted to set up four walls of a tzurat hapetach to enclose a residential area.[103] However, for an uninhabited valley it is invalid.[104]
  3. Four walls made of tzurot hapetach aren't effective for a reshut harabbim because of the issue of ayti rabbim, conceptually "the masses come and knock down the tzurat hapetach."[105]

Doorpost behind a Wall

  1. Most poskim are stringent not to allow a tzurat hapetach if one side post is inside of a four-walled area. If there is only one wall separating between the two poles that is a dispute if it is kosher.[106]

Uneven Doorposts

  1. It is fine for one doorpost to be wider or taller than the other.[107]

Swaying in the Wind

  1. If the side posts would sway in the wind the tzurat hapetach is invalid.[108]
  2. Many poskim hold that the wire on top is acceptable even if it sways in the wind as long as it doesn't fall off the top of the side posts.[109]
  3. If the wire on top of the tzurat hapetach sways in the wind to the sides beyond the two side poles many poskim hold that it is invalid.[110]
  4. If the wires sag, some poskim invalidate it, others hold it is kosher.[111]

Skipping Poles

  1. If two poles have a kosher side post and wire on top, some poskim allow skipping poles even though they have a wire going to the side of the post as long as it is in a straight line.[112]

Tzurat Hapetach Detached from a Wall

  1. Some poskim hold that if a tzurat hapetach is detached from the wall more than 3 tefachim it is invalid. Others hold that it is valid. A compromise view allows the tzurat hapetach if it is detached from one side but on the other side attached to a wall. Some are strict even in that case.[113]

Tzurat Hapetach on Four Sides

  1. According to some rishonim, it is impossible to make a tzurat hapetach for the four sides of an eruv if the tzurat hapetach gaps are more than 10 amot. This opinion is not accepted.[114]

Wire Goes into Pole

  1. If the wire goes straight into the pole (Picture 1 and 2) some poskim hold that it is invalid since it is going into the side of the pole and not over the top.[115] Others hold that it is kosher since the top of the pole is meaningless and can be viewed as though it was removed as long as the wire is still over a pole that is ten tefachim.[116]
  2. If the wire goes into a pole which is cut out in the middle and there are protrusions on the sides of the slit which extend upward (Picture 3), according to many poskim it is invalid,[117] but if the wire goes into the slit and is flush with the top of the protrusions (Picture 4), according to many poskim it is valid.[118] Some are lenient in both cases.[119]

Pole Blocking Tzurat Hapetach

Boardwalk Fence.jpeg
  1. If there is a tzurat hapetach that is blocked by a horizontal pole or multiple poles (see picture to right), some poskim hold that it is invalid since it isn't the normal way that people make doorways.[120] Others hold it is acceptable since the tzurat hapetach is constructed properly and anything additional can be ignored.[121]
  2. If there is a partition that blocks the entranceway from side post to side post and covers the entire width of the doorway so that there isn't ten tefachim above the partition, the tzurat hapetach is invalid.[122]

Slanted Pole

  1. If one of the poles of the tzurat hapetach is slanted (picture #1) many poskim hold that it is kosher.[123]
  2. if one of the poles of the tzurat hapetach is slanted and the wire goes over the side of the pole, such that if the pole were to be cut at the point of the wire it would be over a pole that is 10 tefachim tall (picture #2), many poskim hold it is invalid. If there are a notch or groove where the wire is or below the wire and above 10 tefachim, then it is valid.[124]

Natural Slopes

Angle of the Slope

  1. A slope that that has a height of 10 tefachim over a distance of 4 amot or less[125] is considered a wall for enclosing a reshut hayachid.[126] According to majority of poskim, this distance is measured along the slope and not the floor (Picture #1), however, a minority of poskim hold it is measured along the ground (Picture #2).[127] A tel hamelaket has the halacha of gud asik.[128]
  2. A slope that is more gradual than 10 tefachim within 4 amot, such as 10 tefachim over 5 amot, is not considered a wall.[129]
  3. The slope is considered a wall where it reaches 10 tefachim within 4 amot. The top of the slope is where it is considered to be a the wall and not the bottom of the slope.[130]
  4. Once the slope is 10 tefachim high within 4 amot, the area that slopes above it is considered within the walls of a reshut hayachid.[131] Some argue that it isn't a reshut hayachid until the area flattens out on top.[132]

If Slope Becomes Gradual in Middle

  1. If the slope becomes more gradual in the middle but altogether over 4 amot it reaches a height of 10 tefachim (Picture #3), many poskim hold it is considered a wall. The main point is that as a whole the area of 4 amot has a slope that rises 10 tefachim but it is irrelevant what the slope is at any point.[133] Other poskim hold that this would not constitute a wall. Any part of the slope which is more gradual than 24.6 degrees is not considered a wall at all is a break in the wall. If the break is larger than 4 tefachim it breaks up the two parts of the slope completely.[134]

Two Slopes Broken Up

  1. If the slope is broken up with a width of more than 4 tefachim (Picture #4), even though each slope is at least 24.6 degrees, some poskim it doesn't join together,[135] while others hold it can join together.[136]
  2. If there is a slope that is 5 tefachim within 2 amot or less and a wall of 5 tefachim on top of it, some say that it isn't a wall, but others argue that it is a wall.[137] If there is a slope with less than 3 tefachim of height and a wall of the remaining height to reach 10 tefachim, it is questionable if that is considered a wall.[138]


  1. If the stairs are less than the width of 3 tefachim and less than 3 tefachim wall they can become a wall if altogether there is a height of 10 tefachim within 4 amot. If they are different dimensions see footnote.[139]
  2. A separate issue that some poskim raise regarding counting stairs as a wall is that the wall is trampled (nidreset). Many aren't concerned about this issue.[140]


  1. Chazal forbade carrying in an area not suitable for living that is larger than 5000 square amot even if it is surrounded by walls. Colloquially, this place is called a karpef.[141] Biblically, this area is a reshut hayachid, but the rabbis made a restriction not to carry there more than 4 amot.[142]
  2. What is considered enclosed for living and not subject to the laws of karpef? A house meant for dwelling or a yard opened to a house and then enclosed. If the yard was enclosed not for living then a house was built there afterwards it still has the status of a karpef.[143]
  3. A plateau or island that has natural walls of 10 tefachim that is larger than 5000 square amot has the status of a karpef.[144]


  1. One may not carry in a planted area, such as a garden, that is larger than 5000 square amot and it forbids carrying in the whole eruv. Whether it applies to our cities is a discussion. Some poskim are lenient since relative to the whole city it is insignificant.[145] The lenient view is only lenient if the garden is not enclosed with walls that are 10 tefachim wall. If the garden has walls it is considered its own area and doesn't forbid carrying in the city, but it is forbidden to carry in it.[146]
  2. Many poskim hold that flowers that are planted for beauty are not considered a karpef since its purpose is to enhance living nearby.[147] Others disagree and hold that flowers are included in other plants which are considered a karpef.[148]
  3. A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with plants is no longer considered an area enclosed for dwelling since people don't walk on plants. If it is larger than 5000 square amot it is a karpef and forbidden to carry there. Also, any place adjacent to it and open to it is forbidden.[149] The same applies to plants in a yard that is considered not enclosed for dwelling.[150]
  4. A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with trees is still considered an area enclosed for dwelling since people like to walk beneath the shade of trees.[151] There is a discussion if a forest within a city is a karpef.[152]

Ponds and Lakes

  1. A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with water that is 10 tefachim deep is no longer considered an area enclosed for dwelling, unless the water is drinkable.[153]

Eruv Chatzerot

  1. In order to carry from a house to a courtyard on Shabbat it is necessary to make an Eruv Chatzerot. An Eruv is a joint partnership of food from those who live in the courtyard to signify that they all live together where that food is placed. Shlomo Hamelech instituted this enactment because of a concern that people would come to carry in a reshut harabbim, public thoroughfare. Just like a courtyard is jointly owned and it is permitted to carry from a house there, so too people might think that it is permitted to carry from a house to the reshut harabbim. This institution of Eruv Chatzerot helps remind people that they may carry in the courtyard because they all live together in one place.[154]
  2. An eruv chatzerot must be made with bread[155] or pat haba bkisnin.[156]
  3. The food for the eruv should be placed in one vessel, but if that vessel overflows it is fine to put in two vessels.[157]

Defining the act of carrying

  1. Picking up an object is called Akirah and putting it down is called Hanacha. Both of these actions are forbidden. Therefore, one may not give an object to a non-Jew who will carry from a Reshut HaYachid to a Reshut HaRabim or Karmelit because in that case the Jew will have done the Akirah, rather the non-Jew should pick up the object himself. Similarly, if a non-Jew brings something from one domain to another, the Jew shouldn't take it from his hand because if he did the Jew will have violated Hanacha, rather the non-Jew should put it down.[158]
  2. It is forbidden to bring something into the public domain if it isn't a clothing or jewelry. Even within the category of jewelry certain things are rabbinically forbidden to wear in the public domain, however, the minhag is to be lenient for all jewelry[159], yet a Yarei Shamayim should be strict upon himself.[160]
  3. If it is normal to wear two pairs of clothing, one on top of the other even during the week, then one may wear one pair of clothes on top of another on Shabbat in the public domain even if one doesn't need it but is bringing it for one's friend or the like.[161]
  4. If it is raining, one may wearing a coat in order to protect oneself from rain since the coat is worn as a regular clothing. However, it is forbidden to carry a clothing on top of one's hat in order to protect the hat from rain because it isn't considered wearing the clothing in a regular way.[162]
  5. It is permitted to wear a Tallit in the public domain on Shabbat as long as one wears it regularly; however, one may not put it around one's neck in a place where it is abnormal to wear it that way.[163]

Carrying a child

  1. It is forbidden to carry a baby or child even if he is able to walk even in a Karmalit.[164] However, one shouldn't tell people who do this because certainly they will not listen and its better that they do so unintentionally rather than violate Shabbat intentionally.[165] On the other hand, if there is a chance that others will listen, then one should tell them[166], as well as one should publicize this prohibition[167].

What is considered a garment?

  1. Plastic bags worn over one's shoes are not considered garments and should not be worn outside of an Eruv.[168]
  2. On Shabbat, some posking permit one to walk outside an eruv with a coat worn over his shoulders, without his arms in the sleeves, where that is a normal mode of wearing a coat. This is considered "wearing" it, not carrying it. There is an additional concern that it might fall off and then you might carry it.[169][170]
  3. One may put a shoe insert into a shoe and wear it outside of the eruv on Shabbat to make the shoe wearable since it is considered part of the shoe.[171]
  4. To wear a sticker with a name on it on the inside of a hat isn't considered carrying on Shabbat.[172]

Wearing a Key

  1. For Sephardim it is problematic to wear a belt with a key since it appears that one is carrying to use the key.[173]

Wearing a Watch

  1. It is permitted to wear a watch which a person wouldn't remove if it stopped working, such as a gold watch, because then the watch is considered a jewelry. However, if one is not in an eruv, a person shouldn't wear a regular watch which a person would remove from their hand if it stopped working, but those who are lenient have what to rely on.[174]
  2. One may not go out of an eruv with a pocket watch on Shabbat.[175]


  1. A person who regularly wears glasses may wear them in a public domain on Shabbat. He must wear them on his nose, and may not carry them in his pocket or wear them on his forehead or around his neck.[176]
  2. A person who does not regularly wear glasses but wears, for example, reading glasses for reading only and otherwise carries them in his pocket, may not wear the reading glasses in a public domain.[177] Bifocals which may be worn for both reading and regular use may be worn in a public domain on Shabbat.[178]
  3. Someone who attaches a string worn around his neck to his glasses may wear the glasses with the string attached in a public domain on Shabbat, as long as he wears the glasses on his nose and not around his neck or on his forehead.[179]
  4. Contact lenses may be worn in a public domain on Shabbat by someone who regularly wears them. However, a person who has not yet adjusted to contact lenses may not wear them in a public domain on shabbat, lest he take them out and carry them in his hand.[180]
  5. Photocromatic lenses, i.e. lenses that change from clear to dark in sunlight, may be worn on Shabbat as long as they are worn for regular use.[181]
  6. According to some, sunglasses worn only to protect one's eyes from the sun's rays may be worn in a public domain on Shabbat.[182] Others are strict [183] This includes sunglasses worn over regular glasses.[184] Those who are lenient have what to rely on, especially in a place with an eruv.[185]
  7. Sunglasses that are worn at all times for eyesight problems are considered like regular glasses, and may be worn in a public domain on Shabbat.[186]
  8. Sunglasses that are connected by a hinge to a regular pair of glasses that are regularly worn may be worn in a public domain on Shabbat as long as the person doesn't remove the sunglasses totally when in the shade, rather flips up the sunglasses while they are still attached. It is best to stringent, however.[187]
  9. Sunglasses worn on doctor's orders and are not removed even when one is in his house are judged like regular glasses, and may be worn in a public domain on Shabbat.[188]

A Hearing-aid

  1. A person who is hard of hearing may wear a hearing-aid on Shabbat, even in a public domain without an eruv. One need not be concerned with considerations of electricity or carrying as long as the hearing-aid is securely in his ear, and he turned it on before Shabbat and leaves it on until after Shabbat.[189]

Cane and Wheelchair

  1. Someone who can't walk without a cane may walk in a public domain with the cane.[190] If the person walks at home without a cane and only uses a cane outside he may not walk with it in a public domain on Shabbat.[191] Someone who could walk without a cane but because it is icy outside he is afraid of slipping, it is forbidden to walk out with a cane unless there is an eruv.[192]
  2. Within an eruv it is permitted to walk with a cane either to help one walk or to for the appearance, however, it is forbidden for no purpose at all.[193]
  3. A wheelchair is different from a cane and even if a person can't walk without a wheelchair he may not go out with a wheelchair on Shabbat to a public domain.[194]


  1. The first Mishna in Maseches Shabbos explains that there is an issur deoraisa for a person to take an object from a reshus hayachid on Shabbos and place the object into a reshus harabim or vise versa. One who does so has violated Hotzah. There is also a rabbinic prohibition to do half of the melacha, by either picking up the object (akira) in order to transfer it or to place it done (hanacha) after it has been transferred. The Gemara (Shabbos 4a) indicates that akira and hanacha are only prohibited if the object is placed or removed from a platform of four by four tefachim. Interestingly, the Gemara (5a) states that a person’s hand is treated as if it is four by four tefachim.
  2. Rashi Mishna 2a states that the source for Hotzah is “Vayichale ha’am me’havee” (Shemot 36:6) in which Moshe Rabbeinu commands Klal Yisroel to stop bringing donations for the Mishkan. However, the Ri (Eruvin 17b, Shabbos 2a) states that the source for Hotzah is “Al yaytzay ish mimkomo” (Shemot 16:29) which states that one may not leave one’s domain while carrying. It is imperative to point out that while most melachos are learned from the construction of the mishkan, Hotzah requires pesukim be established as a melacha. Tosfot and Ramban on 2a both address this inconsistency and explain that since Meleches Hotzah is inferior, or garuah, in nature (See their respective explanations what exactly the deficiency is, see also Ohr Zarua’s siman 82) it requires pesukim to clarify that it still is considered one of the 39 melachos and was also done in the Mishkan.(See Tos 96b)
    This concept of Melacha Garua has a considerable amount of practical applications. For instance, the Chayei Adam (Shabbos 9:11) states that an object that has been illicitly carried on Shabbos may still be used, in contrast to other melakhot which, when violated, taint the object with a rabbinical prohibition preventing one from using the object. Furthermore, some rishonim understand that the reason the Talmud says that eiruvin is not required on Yom Tov is because Hotzah falls short of the status of a complete melakhah. See also Afikei Yam, II, 4:8.The fact that Hotzah is a Melacha Garua has ramifications also on the source of the toldos. Usually, the toldos of a melacha merely consist of actions resembling the avos logically. However, some Rishonim (See Tos 96b) learn that the toldos of Hotzah must be both similar in svara to the avos from which they are derived and practiced in the mishkan—a characteristic not found in any other melacha. The toldos of Hotzah are haavara (carrying daled amos in reshus harabim), throwing an item from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim and vice versa, throwing an item four amos in reshus harabim, and hoshata (transferring a chefetz from reshus hayachid to an adjacent reshus hayachid through a makom ptur). (Listed in the first Mishna in Perek Hazorek (96a)) It is a discussion amongst the Rishonim whether hachnasa, transferring something from a reshus harabim to a reshus hayachid, is an av or a toldah. (See Ramban 2b, Rambam Hil Shabbos)
  3. Shulchan Aruch 345:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 81:1
  4. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 81:2
  5. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 81:3. Rav Sar Shalom Goan (Otzar Hageonim Eruvin 6a, Responsa Shaarei Teshuva 209), Rashi (Eruvin 6a s.v. reshut harabbim), Bahag (Berlin p. 131, quoted by Tosfot Eruvin 6a), Tosfot (Eruvin 6a s.v. keysad, Shabbat 6b s.v. kaan), Tosfot Rid (Eruvin 59a, Sh"t Harid n. 107), Mordechai (Shabbat n. 294), Agudah Eruvin 5:56, Piskei Rav Menachem Mendel Klausner (Shabbat 6a), Rav Yechezkel Magdeburg (Shabbat 5b), Rivavan (Shabbat 2a), Riaz (Eruvin 1:5, 5:1), Maharam Rotenberg (Karmina n. 69), Rosh (Eruvin 1:8, Beitzah 3:8, Tosfot Harosh Eruvin 6a s.v. keysad), Raavan (Shabbat n. 349; see Hagahot Mordechai (end of ch. 10) who quotes Rabbi Elazar that disagreed with Rashi and Mishkenaot Yakov 120 posits that this is the Raavan.), Ravyah (Hilchot Eruvin n. 379), and Rashbash (responsa n. 559) hold that a city must have 600,000 in order to be a reshut harabbim. Rabbenu Pertz (Eruvin 6a), Ramban (Eruvin 59a s.v. Mishna), Rashba (responsa 1:722), Ritva (Eruvin 59a), Ran (Chidushei Haran Eruvin 6a), Rambam (as cited by Ritva Eruvin 59a), and Rivash (responsa 405) argue.
    • Ramban makes a suggestion for Rashi that perhaps an intercity highway doesn't need 600,000 to be a reshut harabbim.
    • Ran (Meyuchas Lran Shabbat 6b s.v. kaan) in name of Raah writes that even Rashi holds that it isn't necessary to actually have a population of 600,000. It only requires a path that is normally travelled by many people like 600,000 even though they weren't all there simultaneously. Meiri Eruvin 2a agrees.
  6. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 81:4
  7. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 81:5
  8. Rama 346:3
  9. Responsa n. 120
  10. One minor argument he tacks on is that even in a mavoy mefulash there is a dispute whether a tzurat hapetach is sufficient. The Rashba and Rabbenu Yehonatan hold that doors are necessary. Even though most rishonim (Rif, Rambam, and Rosh) are lenient about this point, he brings 2 proofs from the gemara for the Rashba.
  11. s.v. v'ad
  12. Eruvin 17b
  13. Hilchot Shabbat 17:33
  14. Tosfot Eruvin 6a s.v. keysad, also cited by Ritva Eruvin 59a
  15. See, however, Piskei Riaz 5:1 where he quotes 600,000 as a requirement. This is reiterated in Riaz 1:1:5 that 600,000 is a requirement.
  16. Roke'ach 173 and 175 is clear that he holds like Rashi that a population 600,000 is necessary for a reshut harabbim.
  17. Mishkenot Yakov 120 s.v. amnam based on Hagahot Ashri (Eruvin 1:8), Tosfot Eruvin 62b s.v. vrebbe, and Ritva Eruvin 22a who sound like ayti rabbim applies even in a non-reshut harabbim.
  18. Bet Efraim 26 s.v. u'lifi zeh
  19. 26 s.v. vachshava
  20. Bet Efraim isn't clear about within what span of time 600,000 must travel to that city. In passing he writes that certainly if 600,000 does not frequent there at least within two years it isn't a reshut harabbim.
  21. Bet Efraim 26 s.v. v'atta navo proves this from the Pirush Mishnayot where he writes that we do not follow Rabbi Yehuda about ayti rabbim umevatel mechitzta. He also shows that this is his position in Hilchot Shabbat 17:33, as already noted by the Maggid Mishna and Hagahot Maimoni there. In paragraph s.v. ach ma shekatuv harashba, he notes that Rashba 3:269 (cited by Kesef Mishna Shabbat 17:10) understood that Rambam paskens like Rabbi Yehuda, however, Bet Efraim brings several proofs against this.
  22. Bet Efraim 26 s.v. ivra
  23. Bet Efraim 26 s.v. teshuva makes this point that Rif and Rosh pasken like rabbanan from the fact that they quote the Mishna Eruvin 22a without comment and rabbanan are the majority opinion. Another proof is from the fact that they quote the Mishna Taharot cited on 8a, which according to the gemara 22b must be understood like rabbanan (26 s.v. v'od nireh).
    • In paragraph s.v. v'acharei he proves that Tosfot Eruvin 6b s.v. vha'amar and Tosfot Yeshanim Shabbat 6a ruled like rabbanan.
  24. Hagahot Ashri (Eruvin 1:8) writes that a tzurat hapetach is sufficient for a mavoy mefulash only if the inhabitants of a mavoy travel through it, but if all the townspeople travel through the mavoy they would uproot the tzurat hapetach. He concludes with the words of the Ram from Ivra that this point is true even for Rashi that requires a population of 600,000. Mishkenot Yakov interpreted this to mean that even if we hold like Rashi as long as the townspeople travel on this road they invalidate a tzurat hapetach. He adds that this is also the opinion of Tosfot Eruvin 62b s.v. vrabbi [quoted and accepted by Or Zaruah (2:168), Smag (Aseh Derabbanan 1), and Aguda (Eruvin 6:60)]. Bet Efraim 26 s.v. ach el zeh abit argues that he's discussing a case where there is a reshut harabbim on either side of the street in question. According to Rashi, the reshut harabbim requires 600,000 and then if there is 600,000 on either side then the street used by the townspeople in between is also a reshut harabbim.
  25. In the same vein, they argue about the interpretation of the Maharam who writes that in an area that isn't a reshut harabbim because it lacks 600,000 but is used by the whole town can be permitted with doors. Bet Efraim reads Maharam as saying that even tzurat hapetach is sufficient, while Mishkenot Yakov argues that tzurat hapetach is insufficient and specifically doors are necessary. Igrot Moshe 1:139:3 agrees with Bet Efraim on this point. [Though, Igrot Moshe 1:139:3 writes that even the Maharam agrees with Ri in the case where there are 600,000 and is a karmelit for another reason that it needs doors and perhaps they need to be closed.]
  26. Ritva 22a s.v. derabbanan and kaan writes that doors that close at night are necessary even if the street isn't 16 amot wide. Mishkenot Yakov quotes this as a proof that doors which close are necessary even not for a reshut harabbim if there are masses passing through. Bet Efraim argues that Ritva means that the doors are only necessary if it is a reshut harabbim even though it isn't 16 amot wide since on either side it is a reshut harabbim.
  27. Bet Efraim 27 s.v. v'al kol panim mevu'ar
  28. 345:16-23
  29. Rav Moshe in OC 5:28 disagreed with this chidush of the Aruch Hashulchan.
  30. Chazon Ish OC 107:5
  31. Chazon Ish OC 65:45 holds that once an area is a reshut hayachid because of omed merubeh on 3 walls, the area it enclosed is like it has 4 complete walls closing it off. Those walls can then be used to enclose other areas.
  32. OC 1:139. See also OC 1:138, 4:87-89, 5:28-29, and Hashmata to 4:89.
  33. Bet Efraim 26 s.v. vlifi zeh writes that we don't follow this Rashba either because we hold like rabbanan or we follow Rashi and there isn't a population of 600,000.
  34. Rashba 22a s.v. vkayma lan, Ritva 22a s.v. vkayma lan, Meiri Eruvin 18a s.v. v'anan, 20a s.v. vklal all hold like R' Yehuda and not Rabbanan. This also is the opinion of Ramban (Milchamot 6a) in understanding the Rif and Baal Hameor is also concerned for Rabbi Yehuda.
  35. Rabbenu Chananel (Shabbat 101a) proves that we hold like rabbanan from Shabbat 100a.
  36. Hilchot Shabbat 17:33 as understood by Maggid Mishna and Hagahot Maimoniyot and also explicit in Pirush Mishnayot (Eruvin 2:4)
  37. Tosfot Rid (Mehudra Telita Eruvin 22a s.v. vkol) holds like rabbanan.
  38. Riaz (Eruvin 2:1:7) holds like rabbanan. See Menuchat Ahava v. 3 p. 271 who proved that Riaz held like Rabbi Yehuda from earlier (1:1:5), really that is only because of the issue of how to close a reshut harabbim but not because of the issue of ayti rabbim.
  39. Shabbat 1:201 rules like the opinion of Rabbanan. See also 1:379 where he discusses Rabbi Yochanan but doesn't clarify whether the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan.
  40. Sefer Hameorot (Eruvin 17a)
  41. Eruvin 2:4
  42. Bet Efraim proves that Tosfot Eruvin 6b s.v. vha'amar holds like rabbanan. Rav Chaim Volozhin also assumes Tosfot hold like Rabbanan.
  43. Mishkenot Yakov OC 121 s.v. od rules like Rabbi Yehuda and rejects the Knesset Yechezkel, Chacham Tzvi, and Mayim Rabbim since they didn't investigate the topic and they're against the rishonim such as Ramban.
  44. Mishnat Rebbe Aharon 6
  45. Shoshanim Ldovid (Eruvin 2:4), Chatom Sofer 1:89 s.v. ma nishar, and Imrei Yosher 1:2 hold like rabbanan. Bet Efraim 26 s.v. vheneh quotes that Magen Avraham 363:30, Chacham Tzvi 37, and Mayim Rabbim 34-35 follow rabbanan. Or Letzion 1:30 and Yabia Omer 9:33 agree with rabbanan. Rabbi Mordechai Lebhar in Or Torah v. 666 p. 780 questioned whether Sephardim should follow Rabbi Yehuda. Menuchat Ahava v. 3 p. 371 also is of the opinion that we follow Rabbi Yehuda.
  46. Bet Efraim 26-27
  47. Chazon Ish OC 107:4
  48. Mishkenot Yakov 120 s.v. amnam based on Hagahot Ashri (Eruvin 1:8)
  49. Bet Efraim 26. Biur Halacha 345:9 s.v. vsheni seems to understand Hagahot Ashri like the Bet Efraim that there's reshut harabbim on both sides.
  50. Chazon Ish OC 74:9 is lenient because we don't follow the Hagahot Ashri and ayti rabbim depends on a reshut harabbim.
  51. Mishkenot Yakov 121 s.v. hayotzei rejects this because there are gaps more than 10 amot.
  52. Chazon Ish 112:5 s.v. vbchazon writes that a gap of more than 10 for rabbanan or 13.3 amot for Rabbi Yehuda is deoritta when making pasi biraot. However, if there is omed merubeh then a gap of ten is only derabbanan.
  53. Chazon Ish OC 107:5 holds that omed merubeh is much better than pasi biraot and works mdeoritta even if there are gaps more than 10 amot mdeoritta. His argument assumes that we hold like rabbanan. Rav Chaim Ozer (Achiezer 4:8) agrees with Chazon Ish's idea that omed merubeh walls can enclose a reshut harabbim mdeoritta. Rav Yonatan Shteif (Teshuvot 68) agrees with Chazon Ish's idea that buildings can form omed merubeh.
  54. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC 5:28:3) explained that omed merubeh doesn't work to enclose a street if the walls, such as building walls, were made to allow public traffic to go through. In Mesoret Moshe v. 1 pp. 124-125 he also quotes that Rav Moshe was vehemently against the Chazon Ish's view on Eruvin because it wasn't how it was assumed until today.
  55. Mishnat Rebbe Aharon 6 explains that omed merubeh can't be constructed from different parts of houses and street walls because omed merubeh can't connect two walls that cross a reshut harabbim, or even a break more than 10 amot.
  56. Rav Belsky (Shulchan Halevi ch. 11) held that omed merubeh can't be made up of disparate pieces of a few houses, buildings, fences, etc since each of them are different entities and not seen as one omed merubeh wall.
  57. Yetziyot Hashabbat siman 3 p. 59 quotes that Rav Elyashiv didn't allow an eruv with three walls that were omed merubeh around a reshut harabbim. In Yetziyot Hashabbat siman 1 he explains Rav Moshe's approach and those who disagree with the Chazon Ish.
  58. Biur Halacha 364:2 s.v. vachar based on Tosfot Eruvin 11a s.v. iylayma
  59. Arichat Shulchan Halevi 1 collects several achronim who think that tzurat hapetach works to enclose a reshut harabbim mdeoritta: Pri Megadim (Rosh Yosef Shabbat 6b), Shulchan Aruch Harav 364:4, Rav Chaim Volozhin (Nishmat Chaim), Geon Yakov (Eruvin 11a), Tzemech Tzedek (end of ch. 5), Eshel Avraham 345), Yeshuot Malko (OC 21), Avnei Nezer 273:16, 279:2, 289:2, Aruch Hashulchan 364:1, and Levush Mordechai OC 4.
  60. Mishkenot Yakov OC 121 s.v. vgam. In Mishkenot Yakov OC 121 s.v. vyesh he quotes that Rashi, Bartenura, Rif, Rosh, Baal Hamoer, Ramban, Rabbenu Efraim, Ritva, Smag, Smak, Raavan, Ri, Maharam, Rashba, Rivash, Ran, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch who hold that to enclose a reshut harabbim doors that close are necessary.
  61. Bet Efraim 27 s.v. v'ata avo
  62. Igrot Moshe OC 1:139 requires doors where there is a reshut harabbim or even a karmelit with a lot of people traveling.
  63. Chazon Ish OC 74:4
  64. Bet Efraim counts 25 rishonim who agree with Rashi. See Arichat Shulchan Halevi 1 who counts 42 rishonim who agree with Rashi. Rav Moshe (Mesoret Moshe v. 1 p. 126) said that it doesn't matter how many rishonim we find since it was an established minhag it can remain a minhag.
  65. Yabia Omer OC 9:33
  66. quotes Rav Aharon as not relying on Rashi's opinion to require 600,000. It might also be implied in Mishnat Rebbe Aharon 6 where he quotes the Mishna Brurah as holding that majority of rishonim disagree with Rashi.
  67. Shulchan Halevi 11
  68. Kaf Hachaim 345:39, Eshel Avraham (at the end of 345 s.v. po), Igrot Moshe 1:139:6 s.v. uma based on Tosfot Eruvin 6a. See Rav Elyashiv (Haarot Shabbat 6b) who suggests that women and non-Jews don't count towards the 600,000 since it needs to be similar to the count in the desert.
  69. Rashi Eruvin 59a, Igrot Moshe 1:139:5, 4:87 s.v. v'b'ir. See Rav Elyashiv (Haarot Shabbat 6b) who suggests that guests don't count towards the 600,000 since it needs to be similar to the count in the desert.
  70. Although Yeshot Malko OC 27 holds that people in trains don't count towards the 600,000 because they are enclosed in a reshut hayachid, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OC 1:139, 5:28:2) rejects this completely. Rav Yonatan Shteif (Teshuvot 68 s.v. vheneh) agreed with the Yeshuot Malko and explains that people in cars don't count because it isn't similar to the way people walked in the desert. Rav Elya Meir Bloch (Kol Tzvi p. 19) argued and proved that people in cars count just like the Magen Avraham 363:30 writes that people in boats count towards the 600,000.
  71. This is the implication of the Bet Efraim and Mishkenot Yakov. Arichat Shulchan Halevi 4 understands that Rav Belsky includes population even indoors but challenges him from Rav Moshe.
  72. Igrot Moshe OC 1:139, 4:87. Rav Elyashiv (Haarot Shabbat 6b) seems to suggest that children and sick people who stay indoors don't count towards the 600,000.
  73. Bet Efraim (26 s.v. vamnam b'ezras Hashem), Rav Chaim Ozer (Achiezer 4:8), Chazon Ish (cited by Achiezer 4:8), Rav Belsky in Shulchan Halevi 1:11, Rav Isaac Ausband (Kol Tzvi v. 7 p. 18). Yetziyot Hashabbat siman 3 proves that that most rishonim who espouses Rashi's view hold that it depends on the city and not one street. These are his sources: Rav Shalom Goan (Chemda Genuza 70), Rashi Eruvin 6a, 47a, Tosfot Rid 59a, Tosfot Harosh 59a, Ramban 59a for Rashi, Or Zaruah 164, Sefer Haitim 206. The achronim he quotes who support this view that 600,000 includes everyone in the city include: Magen Avraham 357:11, Pri Megadim EA 357:11, Shulchan Aruch Harav 357:7, Mishna Brurah 357:25, Chachmat Shlomo 363, Maharsham 3:188, Mahari Asad 87, Rav Elchanan Yafeh in Shoel K'inyan, Divrei Malkiel (v. 3 in hashmatot), Dovev Meisharim, Minchat Yitzchak 2:112, 8:32, Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:176, and Chelkat Yakov 100. He also quotes on p. 65 Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Elyashiv agreeing that 600,000 shouldn't be calculated by one street if there's 600,000 in the city. Yeshuot Malko OC 27 writes that shishim ribo includes everyone who is in the city. Though, he holds that for streets outside the city it is a reshut harabbim without shishim ribo.
  74. Rav Elya Meir Bloch (Kol Tzvi v. 7 p. 18) writes that it is possible to split up a city such as Manhattan with a tzurat hapetach so that in the area enclosed there's not 600,000 and then isn't a reshut harabbim. At the end he concludes that the matter needs more investigation and leaves it unresolved. This also appears to be the view of Shevet Halevi 8:177(2). Rav Yonatan Shteif (Teshuvot 68 s.v. v'ayin) implies this approach as well, but it isn't clear since he first mentions his approach that Manhattan isn't a reshut harabbim anyway because of walls.
    • Some say that this is also the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein. However, from Igrot Moshe 4:88 and 5:28:1 this seems incorrect. He writes there that one cannot make an eruv even in section of Brooklyn since within a 12x12 mil of that area there is 600,000 people.
  75. Arichat Shulchan Halevi n. 4 proves from Bet Meir 5b s.v. bishlama that shishim ribo is judged by every street individually.
  76. Igrot Moshe 1:139, 4:87. Yetziyot Hashabbat siman 3 p. 59 quotes Rav Elyashiv as disagreeing with this chiddush that 600,000 depends on the city and not 12 mil. On p. 65 he quotes that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also disagreed with that position of Rav Moshe.
  77. The simple language of Shulchan Aruch O.C. 345:7 indicates that this view maintains that there must be a presence of 600,000 every day. Mishna Brurah 345:24 challenges this because none of the rishonim who support this view mention that 600,000 must pass there every day. Kaf Hachaim 345:40 quotes the Levush and Shulchan Aruch Harav who accept Shulchan Aruch simply. Rav Elyashiv (Haarot Shabbat 6b) relied on the opinion that if there isn’t 600,000 every day it isn’t a reshut harabbim to allow an eruv in Yerushalayim today where there is 600,000. Igrot Moshe 1:139 and 4:87 (and Mesoret Moshe v. 1 p. 127) in his own way also accepts this concept that the 600,000 are present in one day. However, Mishkenot Yakov 121 s.v. v'od rejects this possibility in understanding Rashi. Bet Efraim 26 also veers from the simple understanding of one day.
  78. Igrot Moshe OC 4:87
  79. Bet Efraim 26
  80. Mishkenot Yakov 121 s.v. v'od argues that based on Ritva 22b and Riaz the way to calculate 600,000 is not based on one day or any specific amount of time. Rather as long as theoretically at some point for some need 600,000 could travel there it is a reshut harabbim. He writes that this is very common in his day in many towns that have streets open to neighboring towns. Though, he also uses language that the masses travel there frequently from far away, implying that he limits it to a metropolitan area.
  81. Nishmat Chaim
  82. Mishkenot Yakov 122 s.v. achrei writes that after seeing the Ramban he accepted it because it was similar to his understanding of Rashi.
  83. Regarding bridges and tunnels Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe 1:139:5 s.v. v'im ken) wasn't sure if they were part of the city to be counted for 600,000 but he didn't consider the possibility that 600,000 is not necessary for a highway.
  84. Mishnat Rebbe Aharon 6
  85. Chazon Ish OC 112:1-5
  86. Igrot Moshe OC 4:89 dated Chanuka 1961
  87. Igrot Moshe OC 1:139, YD 3 Hashmata to 4:89, 4:89
  88. Igrot Moshe OC 1:138-9, OC 4:87
  89. Igrot Moshe OC 4:86, Hashmata to 4:89 at end of YD 3
  90. Rabbi Efraim Glatt discusses this issue and two possible solutions.
    • The author of EruvOnline in two articles 1 and
    2 writes that in his understanding Rav Moshe didn't allow an Eruv in Brooklyn because he was lead to believe that there were 3 million people in Brooklyn and more than 600,000 in each of Flatbush and Boro Park. But had he known the actual populations he would have allowed it.
    • In 5:28:1 he writes that Brooklyn altogether has more than 600,000 people. However, in 5:28:5 he sounds like he says that separately Flatbush and Boro Park each have 600,000 people. In 4:88 says that one cannot make an eruv in Brooklyn even in one section unless an entire stretch of 12x12 mil (all of Brooklyn) doesn't have a population of 600,000.
  91. Shevet Halevi 8:177(2)
  92. Igrot Moshe OC 4:87
  93. Yabia Omer OC 9:33
  94. Mesoret Moshe v. 1 p. 125
  96. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 82:1. The derabbanan prohibitions of Hotzah include doing an akira without a hanacha (3a), a hanacha without an akira (3a), and Hotzah from reshus hayachid/reshus harabim to a karmelis (3b).
  97. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 82:2
  98. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 82:2
  99. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 346:1
  100. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 346:1 quotes two opinions on the matter. Birkei Yosef 346:1 explains that Shulchan Aruch rules like the lenient opinion. The Rama 372:6 is strict on the matter. Kaf Hachaim 346:17 writes that one should be strict in order to satisfy both opinions quoted in Shulchan Aruch, but that if the item was placed down in the exempt area before being transferred there is room to be lenient.
  101. Yalkut Yosef 345:4. For background see Introduction to the Modern Eruv.
  102. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 362:11 rules like Rif and Rambam that it isn't necessary to have a heker tzir. Bach 362:10 agrees. Mishkenot Yakov 123 p149 writes that it is proper to be strict to require a heker tzir for a tzurat hapetach. He garners support for this view from Rosh, Maharam, Tur, Ritva, Raavad, Smag, and Smak.
  103. Pri Megadim MZ 363:1 has an unresolved question whether a tzurat hapetach is valid from the Torah or derabbanan. Biur Halacha 362:10 s.v. kshkol tries to prove that this is a dispute between the Ri and Rabbenu Chananel. Chazon Ish 70:13 holds that the tzurat hapetach is valid m'deoritta (excluding the issue of ayti rabbim).
  104. Biur Halacha 362:10 s.v.aval is lenient on uninhabited valley if it is only 10 or less. Chazon Ish 70:11 machmir.
  105. Eruvin 6b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 364:2
  106. The Netivot in Tikkun Eruvin writes that you can’t make a tzurat hapetach with one kaneh that is enclosed in an area surrounded by four walls. He presents two reasons. 1) A tzurat hapetach needs to be recognizable and if it is inside another area it isn’t recognizable. 2) The reshut hayachid is considered completely filled up and the kaneh is like it doesn’t count. Shaarei Teshuva 363:7 quotes this. MB 363:113 agrees. Avnei Nezer OC 291 accepts the Tikkun Eruvin’s point for another reason because he disagrees with both reasons of the Tikkun Eruvin. He says that it is like the kaneh that in the reshut hayachid is like it is separated from the other kaneh. Chazon Ish 70:22 writes this idea to explain the Tikkun Eruvin. Chazon Ish is also machmir even if it is behind one wall.
  107. Mayim Amukim 2:26, Magen Avraham 362:18, Tosefet Shabbat 362:26
  108. Magen Avraham 362:18, Mishna Brurah 362:20, Netivot Shabbat 19:14
  109. Machasit Hashekel 362:18 writes that the wire on top can sway in the wind and although is part of a wall, doesn't have all the stringencies of a wall which cannot sway in the wind at all. Mishna Brurah and Aruch Hashulchan agree. Pri Megadim E"A 362:18 argues that every mechitza must be strong enough not to fall down in the wind but it doesn't matter if it would sway in the wind. For the wire on top he writes that it is kosher if it sways as well as it doesn't fall off the side posts. Chazon Ish agrees. However, unlike the above poskim, Mishna Brurah cites Mishkenot Yakov who holds that the wire is completely invalid if it sways in the wind at all. Kaf Hachaim 362:97 cites Mishkenot Yakov, but in 362:112 he seems to accept Machasit Hashekel. Igrot Moshe 5:40:2 agrees with Pri Megadim and Chazon Ish.
  110. Mishkenot Yakov 123 writes that the wire sways to the side beyond the two poles, it is invalid because the lintel on top is not functioning as a lintel on top of where it should be a wall. Also, he writes that it is a kal vchomer from min hasad that it is pasul. Chazon Ish 71:7 writes that if the wire sways to the side beyond the width of the posts, it is invalid. In Chazon Ish 71:8, he rejects his proof for that point but doesn’t reject his main point. In 71:10, he reiterates his stringent view. Shoneh Halachot 362:59 quotes Chazon Ish as being strict in the case where the wire extends to the sides of the poles. Netivot Shabbat 19:42 agrees that it is invalid. Binat Simcha (cited by Bikurei Elazar p. 498) quotes the Griz who was strict to make very wide side posts so that the wire doesn't sway beyond them. Bikrei Elazar p. 499 quotes the Shaarei Tzion 3, Maharam Brisk 68, Imrei Yosher 2:133, and Har Tzvi as being lenient on a wire that sways beyond the side posts.
  111. Mishkenot Yakov 123 invalidates a wire that is sagging for three reasons. Ritva Eruvin 11b writes that the lintel on top of a tzurat hapetach must be flat. Also, if it sags it is like a tzurat hapetach min hasad. Lastly, if it sags then it'll move in the wind. Chazon Ish 71:10 isn't sure and seems to be strict on sagging wires.
    • Shaarei Tzion 3 argues that a wire that’s sagging is kosher because the wire of a tzurat hapetach can be curved. His primary argument is based on an inference from Rashi Eruvin 11a and then defends his position in light of Eruvin 11b which implies otherwise. Even though Ritva Eruvin 11b is explicit that the wire must be flat, he argues that this is only relevant to mezuzah and not eruvin, as Tikkun Eruvin argued. He also writes that it is kosher if it sways to the side but he isn’t clear how much it is allowed to sway to the side, particularly if he’d allow swaying beyond the width of the side posts.
  112. Har Tzvi 2:18:12
  113. Tevuot Shor 11b learns from Tosfot Eruvin 11a that a tzurat hapetach needs to have the halacha's of a lechi. Since a lechi is invalid if it is more than 3 tefachim away from the wall (Eruvin 12b), so too a tzurat hapetach in such a fashion is invalid.
    • This seems to be a dispute between the rishonim. Raavad (quoted by Rashba 10b s.v. shmat and Meiri Eruvin 11b s.v. zeh) holds that tzurat hapetach which isn’t connected to the walls on the side are invalid since a tzurat hapetach is not considered like omed. Tosfot Rabbenu Peretz Eruvin 11a explicitly is lenient if a tzurat hapetch is not attached to a wall. Ritva (Eruvin 10b s.v. shmat) disagrees with Raavad and hold that tzurat hapetach is like omed. Rashba Eruvin 10b isn't clear about his conclusion.
    • Magen Avraham 363:5 quotes a dispute between Riaz, Rabbenu Yonatan, and Tosfot whether a lechi that’s 3 tefachim away from the wall and is itself 3 tefachim wide is kosher. According to Riaz and Rabbenu Yonatan that the lechi is kosher, a tzurat hapetach should also be kosher even if it is more than 3 tefachim away from the wall. Tosfot who holds that the lechi which is more than 3 tefachim away from the wall is always invalid might also invalidate a tzurat hapetach that is more than 3 tefachim from the wall.
    • Tikkun Eruvin p. 2 makes a compromise that it is valid if it is attached on one side, but invalid if it is detached on both sides. Bet Efraim OC 28, Har Tzvi 2:18:5, and Chazon Ish 70:14 agree. Bet Efraim explains the reason for Tevuot Shor is that the tzurat hapetach needs to connect to the existing walls which come to permit the area. Chazon Ish seems to be leaning to the lenient view about if it is detached on both sides in 70:14, but in 70:21 he seems to be strict.
    • Avnei Nezer OC 287 and Geon Yakov 11a agree with Tevuot Shor for another reason. He holds that the tzurat hapetach is not considered like it is standing. Therefore, if it is detached from the walls, there could be more airspace than wall (parutz merubeh al haomed).
    • Halacha: Mishna Brurah 363:23 is strict except in extenuating circumstances. Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 18 holds that it is kosher in extenuating circumstances.
  114. Shulchan Aruch 362:10 quotes Rambam who is strict unlike Tosfot and Rosh who are lenient. The primary opinion in Shulchan Aruch is Tosfot and Rosh. Avnei Nezer 287 writes that the halacha follows Rosh. Chazon Ish 70:11 agrees.
    • Mishkenot Yakov 123 p. 156 s.v. v’ha’rif writes that according to Rambam we can’t make a tzurat hapetach in the four corners. It is a kal v’chomer from what he writes regarding keren zavit. Mishna Brurah 361:8, Kaf Hachayim 361:18, and Chazon Ish 72:1 all rule like Rashi that keren zavit means two corners. It even seems like Shulchan Aruch paskens like that because in 362:10 he quotes the gemara 11a according to Rashi and Tosfot, which isn't true according to Rabbenu Chananel and Rambam or Rif as Rashba and Ritva explain for Rambam and Rif.
  115. Mishna Brurah 362:64 quoting Pri Megadim isn't sure if it is valid if the side protrusions go above the wire. When the wire goes through the pole there are side protrusions above the wire as well as part of the pole above the wire. Tosefet Shabbat 362:29 and Kaf Hachaim 362:106 agree. Chatom Sofer OC 1:90 s.v. v'ani based on Hagahot Ashri (Eruvin 1:11) is explicitly strict about a wire that goes through a pole.
  116. Chazon Ish 71:9, Ha'elef Lecha Shlomo OC 1:164, Divrei Malkiel 3:16 s.v. v'b'emet, Har Tzvi 2:18:3. The Aruch Hashulchan 362:32 who is lenient even if the side protrusions extend above the wire isn't clear about this case since part of the pole is above the wire.
  117. Mishna Brurah 362:64 quotes Pri Megadim (MZ 362:4, 363:19:4) who isn't sure about this case if it is valid and suggests being strict about this case. Tosefet Shabbat 362:29 and Kaf Hachaim 362:106 agree to be strict. The Netivot in Tikkun Eruvin p. 3 isn't clear about this case. Shaar Hatzion 362:52 suggests that he is strict about this case, while Chazon Ish 71:9 explains that he would be lenient.
  118. Mishna Brurah 362:64 quotes Pri Megadim (MZ 362:4, 363:19:4) who is lenient about this case. Aruch Hashulchan 362:32 agrees. The Netivot in Tikkun Eruvin p. 3 is lenient about this case.
  119. Aruch Hashulchan 362:32, Chazon Ish 71:9
  120. Teshurat Shay 327
  121. Maharil (Likutim n. 15), Avnei Nezer 295
  122. Chazon Ish 70:19
  123. Chazon Ish 71:11, Avnei Nezer 291:12-16
  124. Chazon Ish 71:12. Avnei Nezer 291:15, however, holds that there is gud asik on a tel hamelaket even on the slope once it is above ten tefachim.
  125. Sfat Emet (Shababt 100a s.v. amar rav)
  126. Gemara Shabbat 100a, Rambam Shabbat 14:16, Shulchan Aruch and Rama O.C. 363:36, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 362:2
  127. Rabbenu Chananel (Shabbat 100b), Ritva (Shabbat 100a s.v. tel, Eruvin 19b s.v. tel), and Riaz (Eruvin 2:1:7) hold that 4 amot is measured along the slope, while Tosfot Zevachim (63a s.v kol) holds that 4 amot is measured along the ground. Goan Yakov (Eruvin 19b), Mishna Brurah 345:5, 363:154, Aruch Hashulchan 345:28, Maharalbach 19, and Netivot Shabbat 16:6 hold like Rabbenu Chananel. Mahalbach explains that this is also the view of Rashi Eruvin 19b and Rambam Shabbat 14:16. Markevet Hamishna explains Rambam like Tosfot. Sfat Emet Shabbat 100a says Rashi agrees with Rabbenu Chananel. (There Tosfot write that a slope of a triangle with height 9 and floor 20 is steeper than a tel hamelaket. According to Rabbenu Chananel it isn’t true.) if 4 amot is measured on the floor then the angle of the slope is arctan(10/24)=22.6 degrees. If 4 amot is measured on the slope then the angle of the slope is arcsin(10/24)=24.6 degrees.
  128. Rashi Eruvin 15a s.v. gevoha, Machaneh Yisrael (12:16:5 p.293), Netivot Shabbat ch. 16 fnt. 19. See Rav Chaim Halevi on Rambam Sukkah 11:4 who suggests that Rambam doesn't hold of gud asik but, nonetheless, the top of the tel hamelaket is a reshut hayachid that extends upward. Chazon Ish 108:9 implies that there is no gud asik for the slope of the tel hamelaket.
  129. Rashi Shabbat 100a s.v. tel writes that if the slope is more gradual than 10 tefachim within 4 amot it is like the ground of the reshut harabbim since people can walk over it easily. Taz 363:28 and Mishna Brurah 363:154 quote Rashi. Chazon Ish (65:70 s.v. achrei) suggests that an area that is raised up or lower 10 tefachim than the area next to it, it could be a reshut hayachid, since it is set off from the reshut harabbim even though the slope is more gradual than 10 amot within 4 amot. This is true on condition that people don't walk over the walls. For example, if there is a house with walls that are sloped more gradually than 10 amot within 4 amot, it is a reshut hayachid inside since people don't walk over the walls. His proof is Sukkah 19a. Netivot Shabbat ch. 6 fnt. 17 notes that the implication of the poskim is unlike this Chazon Ish.
  130. Rashi Shabbat 100a s.v. tel and s.v. otto. Machaneh Yisrael (12:18 p. 294) writes that only the top of the slope where it reaches 10 tefachim within 4 amot is considered a wall and not the bottom of the slope.
  131. Maharshal (Shabbat 100a s.v. bdibur hamatchil tel) explains that Rashi holds that even the slope is also considered a reshut hayachid once the slope reaches 10 tefachim high within 4 amot of distance. Avnei Nezer OC 291:15 explains that there is gud asik on a tel hamelaket even on the slope once it is ten tefachim.
  132. Chazon Ish 108:9. Tosfot Shabbat 5b s.v. kotel writes that a slanted wall which is less than 10 tefachim from the ground is considered like a reshut harabbim only if people place items on top of it. Tosfot implies that people didn't use the slanted wall, it would be considered a karmelit according to its dimensions. Ramban disagrees and argues that a slanted wall is like a straight wall and the side of it is considered airspace of the reshut harabbim. Rashba defends Tosfot by saying that the side of a wall is the airspace of a reshut harabbim, but a slanted wall is considered a new domain since there is a place upon it to place items. Chazon Ish applies this discussion to a slope of a tel hamelaket above 10 tefachim. According to Ramban, since it is like a wall, the surface is considered the airspace of the domain below. In practice it would be a makom patur since it is 10 tefachim above a reshut harabbim. Even though according to Tosfot it seems that the slope is considered a new domain and should be a reshut hayachid, Chazon Ish explains that isn't the case. Tosfot fundamentally agrees with Ramban, though he considers the sloped wall to be a new domain since no one can walk below it and can't be called airspace. However, above ten tefachim where walking below it is irrelevant Tosfot agrees with Ramban. Machaneh Yisrael (12:16:5 p. 293) rejects Chazon Ish's conclusion because it is against the Rashba and also Ritva Eruvin 90a. Machaneh Yisrael holds like Maharshal. Netivot Shabbat ch. 16 fnt. 19 quotes the dispute between Maharshal and Chazon Ish.
  133. Tosefet Shabbat 345:2, Sfat Emet (Shabbat 100a s.v. amar rav). Mishna Brurah (Biur Halacha 358:2 s.v. v'im) seems to also be other this opinion as he compares two vertical walls split by some horizontal distance to be a wall if altogether it is 10 tefachim tall over 4 amot.
  134. Chazon Ish 65:62 and 111:4 writes that if at any point if the slope it becomes more gradual than 24.6 degrees that part is not considered part of the slope and would break it up if it is wider than 3 tefachim. That is true even if altogether the slope is 10 tefachim tall within 4 amot. However, in 65:70 he prefers the logic that it would be a wall unless it is broken up with an area of 4 tefachim. In 111:4 he also uses the width of 4 tefachim. Netivot Shabbat 16:8 codifies the Chazon Ish, though in footnote he notes Tosefet Shabbat and Biur Halacha's view.
  135. Chazon Ish 65:62 and 70
  136. Gra 358:2, Biur Halacha 358:2 s.v. v'im. Trumat Hadeshen cited by Rama 358:2 writes that a 9.5 tefach wall of dirt of a width of 4 tefachim next to a 19 tefach stone wall is considered as though the dirt wall is a new ground and the stone wall is broken since it isn't 10 tefachim above the dirt wall. Gra 358:2 argues that the two walls should combine, even though there is a flat ground of 4 tefachim on top of the dirt wall between them. Biur Halacha 358:2 s.v. v'im writes that everyone should agree that the walls can combine as long as altogether there is a height of 10 tefachim within 4 amot. Chazon Ish notes that his argument is against Gra. Biur Halacha 362:2 s.v. sh'asa suggests that this is the dispute between Trumat Hadeshen and Gra.
  137. Biur Halacha 362:2 s.v. tel isn't sure about this case because perhaps only a slope that altogether with 10 tefachim tall constitutes a wall. On the other hand, it the slope of 5 tefachim could be a partial wall and joins together with the vertical wall of 5 tefachim.
  138. Biur Halacha 362:2 s.v. tel isn't sure if this type of slope can join together with a wall, since the slope is less than 3 tefachim tall it is like part of the ground of the reshut harabbim. If so, the wall on top is ineffective unless it itself is 10 tefachim tall.
  139. Netivot Shabbat 16:9 writes that stairs which are 3 tefachim or less wide and 3 tefachim or less tall are considered a wall. He compares this to a tel hamelaket since it rises 10 tefachim within 4 amot and even though it isn’t a flat slope since each aberration is less than lavud and it is like a flat slope. According to the analysis of Kovetz Teshuvot 4:33 the following emerges:
    • If the stairs are a width of 4 tefachim according to Trumat Hadeshen (cited by Rama 358:2) and Chazon Ish 65:70 it isn't considered a wall, but according to the Gra it is considered a wall.
    • If the stairs aren't 4 tefachim wide, it is considered a wall according to Chazon Ish, but possibly not a wall according to Rav Elyashiv.
    • If the stairs are less than the width of 3 tefachim, according to Trumat Hadeshen, Chazon Ish, and Rav Elyashiv it is a wall.
    • Rav Elyashiv writes that an eruv should not be lenient on this question. See Chashukei Chemed Shabbat 100a where he writes that stairs can count as a wall as long as it is 10 tefachim within 4 amot, but does not specify any of the above conditions.
  140. In terms of nidreset, Chatom Sofer OC 1:89 holds that it isn’t an issue because we pasken like rabbanan in Eruvin 22a. Chazon Ish 108:13 holds that nidreset is never an issue with a real wall and a borrowed phrase out of context. Imrei Yosher 1:2 holds that nidreset is an issue to mevatel walls completely. Dirshu 358:20 applies his opinion to stairs to be machmir. Netivot Shabbat (ch. 16 fnt. 24) regarding stairs quotes Rav Yechezkel Roth that we’re concerned for mechitza nidreset and we cannot count stairs as a wall. However, Rav Friedman argued with him based on the Chatom Sofer and Chazon Ish. Kovetz Elyashiv (Kovetz Teshuvot 4:33) writes that it is an issue if the stairs are 3 or 4 tefachim wide because we should be concerned for the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen. He doesn’t raise the issue of mechitza nidreset.
  141. The halacha follows Rabbi Akiva in Eruvin 23a that an area that is the size of a bet saatayim, 50 amot by 100 amot, is always permitted and if it is larger than that size it is permitted if is enclosed for living purposes. One of the types of areas that fit this description of not being suitable for living is a karpef. Rashi (Eruvin 18a s.v. l'gina) explains that technically karpef refers specifically to a storage area of wood. However, colloquially, this place is called a karpef such as in Gemara Shabbat 7a and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:3.
  142. In Eruvin 67b, Rabbi Yochanan explains that a karpef is a reshut hayachid, but the rabbis forbade carrying in it more than 4 amot. Rambam (Shabbat 16:1) rules like Rabbi Yochanan. Levush 358:1 and Mishna Brurah 358:5 agree. Rashi in several places (Shabbat 80a s.v. v'hu and 99b s.v. mukaf) indicates that a karpef is a karmelit on a Torah level.
  143. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:1
  144. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:3
  145. Dvar Shmuel 259 writes that a garden in a city is not considered a karpef to forbid carrying in the city. He has 3 reasons: 1) Plants only make the area where they're planted forbidden if they're planted in a karpef, storage area for wood, but not in a city. A city which has a lot of people dwelling there, isn't nullified by a relatively small area of plants. 2) The plants which are made for temporary purposes isn't a karpef. Also, an area set aside for protection of the city isn't a karpef since it is meant to function as part of the city. 3) Making an eruv chatzerot permits a karpef. Chacham Tzvi 59 writes that although originally he disagreed with the Dvar Shmuel, later he defended it based on Rosh (Eruvin 2:2). Rosh isn't sure if the concept that plants nullify area of dirah, dwelling, is only true in a karpef or even in a chetzer. Also, perhaps even plants nullify dirah in a chetzer it wouldn't in a city. Biur Halacha 358:9 s.v. aval has difficulty with this Dvar Shmuel, though he seems like he agrees that it is an opinion to rely on in extenuating circumstance. Kaf Hachaim 358:84 quotes Maamer Mordechai who is strict, but also infers from Chida (Machzik Bracha 358:2) that he is lenient. See, however, Chida in Shiurei Bracha 358:1 who seems to have retracted and is strict. Chazon Ish OC 88:25 is strict. See Minchat Yitzchak 6:33:1 where he implies that he's strict.
    • Petach Hakarpef p. 48 quotes Dovev Meisharim who suggests that the Dvar Shmuel is only relevant to plants planted after the city was enclosed, similar to Rosh's discussion. However, Petach Hakarpef rejects this because the Dvar Shmuel himself didn't connect his nuance with the Rosh.
    • Bear Sarim 16:38 p. 20-21 proves from Rambam against Dvar Shmuel. He quotes that Rav Iser Zalman Meltzer made this point as well. See Yaskil Avdi 2:111:6 s.v. vlinyan ikar.
  146. Bet Meir 358, Biur Halacha 358:9 s.v. aval
  147. Minchat Yitzchak 5:108, Chelkat Yakov OC 181:4
  148. Divrei Chaim 2:28, Shoel Umeishiv 1:3:131
  149. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:9
  150. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:10
  151. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:9
  152. Meishvat Regel p. 21 writes that a forest is a karpef. Peni Aryeh (Eruvin siman 8 p. 79) permits a forest based on Dvar Shmuel since it is within the city.
  153. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:11
  154. Tur 366:1, Rambam Eruvin 1:4, Mishna Brurah 366:2
  155. Eruvin 81a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 366:7
  156. Brachot 42a, Darkei Moshe 366:1 quoting Rabbenu Yerucham, Aruch Hashulchan 366:15. Shevet Halevi 11:103 wonders why the poskim by eruvin didn't codify this halacha. He answers that they didn't because it is obvious since even rice bread is acceptable for an eruv (S"A 366:7).
  157. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 366:7
  158. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 82:3
  159. See Tosfot Shabbat 64b
  160. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 84:1-2
  161. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 84:12
  162. Shulchan Aruch 301:14, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 84:4, Mishna Brurah 301:52-3
  163. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 84:16
  164. Biur Halacha 308:41 s.v. shelo forbids it as does Igrot Moshe OC 2:33. See Rabbi Akiva Eiger 1:28.
  165. Mishna Brurah 308:154, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 82:10
  166. Mishna Berurah 508:3
  167. Igros Moshe YD 2:33
  168. Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen (The Shabbos Home, v. 1, p. 121) in the name of Rav Moshe Feinstein
  169. Rivivot Ephraim 1:223:14
  170. Or Letzion 2:23:7
  171. Sh"t Rivivot Ephraim 1:225
  172. Or Yitzchak 1:126
  173. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 301:11
  174. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 18:27
  175. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 84:2, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 18:28
  176. Yalkut Yosef 301:31 and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 18:16. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (comments on Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 84:6) writes that one may wear glasses in the public domain, however, one who usually takes them off in the street shouldn't go out with them without an eruv.
  177. Yalkut Yosef 301:32, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 18:17.
  178. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 17
  179. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 16, Sh"t Rivivot Ephraim 1:227
  180. Yalkut Yosef siman 301 seif 33, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 17
  181. Yalkut Yosef siman 301 seif 34, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 18
  182. Halichot Olam Chelek 4: pg. 283
  183. Yalkut Yosef siman 301 seif 35, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 18
  184. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 18
  185. Yalkut Yosef siman 301 seif 35.
  186. Yalkut Yosef siman 301 seif 34, Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 18
  187. Yalkut Yosef siman 301 seif 36, shmirat shabbat perek 18 halacha 18
  188. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata perek 18 halacha 18
  189. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata (perek 18 halacha 14), Yalkut Yosef (siman 328 seif 328 and siman 301 seif 38). See footnote 39 there where he quotes Hacham Ovadiah, Rav Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, Rav Henkin, and the Tzitz Eliezer who ruled leniently as well.
  190. Tosfot (Shabbat 65b s.v. hakiteya) even writes that on Shabbat it is permitted for someone who needs a cane to walk to go out with it to a public domain on Shabbat since it is like shoes for him. Rashba (Beitzah 25b s.v. ein) and Ran (Beitzah 14a s.v. gemara tanu) agree with Tosfot. The Shitah Mikubeset (Beitzah 25b s.v. vekatav mori) quotes the Radvaz who argues with Tosfot but concludes that he doesn't feel confident to reject the ruling of Rabbenu Tam that it is permitted. Shulchan Aruch OC 301:17 accepts the opinion of Tosfot.
  191. Mishna Brurah 301:64
  192. Mishna Brurah 301:65. Birkei Yosef 301:3 writes that if it is muddy out and one wants to use a cane not to slip one may not use a cane except in a private domain.
  193. Mishna Brurah 301:66 writes that it is forbidden to walk with a cane in an eruv if there's no purpose for the cane because it is a desecration of Yom Tov (see Beitzah 25b).
  194. Rav Paalim 1:25, Minchat Yitzchak 2:114, Shemirat Shabbat Khilchata (ch. 34 fnt. 101)