OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the case of a Mavoy that opens into a Seratya (public thoroughfare) on one side and a Bik'ah on the other side, or a Mavoy that opens into a Bik'ah on both sides. RASHI (DH Bik'ah) points out that a Bik'ah is a "Karmelis."

We know that there are four domains with regard to Shabbos (see Shabbos 6a): Reshus ha'Rabim (public domain), Reshus ha'Yachid (private domain), "Karmelis," and Makom Petur (exempt area). What does the word "Karmelis" mean, and how does it relate to the domain that it describes?

(a) RASHI in Shabbos (3b, DH Ba'i Abaye) says that the word "Karmelis" comes from the verse, "Ye'aro v'Charmelo..." (Yeshayah 10:18), which means "fertile field." Such a field is neither a place through which the public passes nor a place which is used privately by an individual.

(b) TOSFOS in Shabbos (6a, DH Karmelis) explains based on a Yerushalmi that the word "Karmelis" comes from the words "Rach u'Mal," or "soft and rollable," and it refers to grain that is neither very moist nor very dry. Since a Karmelis is neither a Reshus ha'Rabim nor a Reshus ha'Yachid, it is referred to by this name to represent its hybrid nature.

(c) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Shabbos) explains that the word "Karmelis" means "k'Armelis" -- "like a widow." A widow is not married, but she is also not a Besulah. Similarly, a Karmelis is not a Reshus ha'Rabim, but it is also not a Reshus ha'Yachid.

The ROSH YOSEF in Shabbos explains that perhaps all three explanations are true, and that each explanation applies to a different type of Karmelis:

1. One type of Karmelis is a Bik'ah, a valley full of grain. It is called a "Karmelis" because of the word "v'Charmelo," which means "fertile field." This is consistent with Rashi's explanation of the word "Karmelis."

2. Another type of Karmelis is the Mavoy (alley) and Karpaf she'Lo Hukaf l'Dirah (open field that was fenced-in but not for the sake of residential dwelling; see Shabbos 7a). According to the Torah, such an area is a Reshus ha'Yachid, but the Rabanan decreed that it has the stringencies of both a Reshus ha'Yachid and a Reshus ha'Rabim. It is called "Karmelis" because it is "like a widow" (as the Rambam explains). It is like the woman who was once married (the field once had a status of a Reshus ha'Yachid), but who then lost her status (the field is now considered to have the stringencies of a Reshus ha'Rabim).

3. The Rosh Yosef does not explain what type of Karmelis matches Tosfos' explanation of the word "Karmelis." However, we may suggest that Tosfos' explanation refers to a third type of Karmelis that we find in the Gemara: a pole in a Reshus ha'Rabim or a step between a Reshus ha'Yachid and a Reshus ha'Rabim. Since it is set between, or adjacent to, the two domains, it is represented by the hybrid name, "Rach u'Mal."

We thus find that the three meanings of the word "Karmelis" refer to the three different types of Karmelis! (See also Insights to Shabbos 6:1.)

QUESTION: The Gemara relates that Rav prohibited one from carrying in a Mavoy which had a breach that stretched across the entire width of the Mavoy's cul-de-sac, opening into a Chatzer. He permitted carrying in the Chatzer, though.

The Gemara initially assumes that Rav prohibited one from carrying because the Mavoy is considered to "penetrate" from one Reshus ha'Rabim (at its front end) to another (since there is a Reshus ha'Rabim that passes by the other end of the Chatzer), and not because he required an Eruv Chatzeros between the houses of the people who live on the side of the Mavoy and the people who live in the Chatzer. The Gemara concludes, however, that the opposite is true: one is permitted to carry in the Mavoy when it has an Eruv Chatzeros, and the Reshus ha'Rabim on the other side of the Chatzer does not affect the Mavoy.

RASHI (DH Chatzer) explains the initial assumption of the Gemara. One is permitted to carry in the Chatzer because the presence of the Mavoy that is attached to the Chatzer cannot prohibit carrying in the Chatzer. However, the Chatzer does prohibit those in the Mavoy from carrying, since the residents of the Chatzer always tread through the Mavoy and are considered as though they live in the Mavoy as well as in the Chatzer. Rashi adds that the Reshus ha'Rabim at the other end of the Chatzer cannot prohibit one from carrying, because there is a "Pesach" (entranceway) that separates it from the Chatzer.

Rashi's words are very difficult to understand for a number of reasons.

(a) The Gemara at this point assumes that the Reshus ha'Rabim prohibits carrying in the Mavoy, and not the fact that the residents of the Mavoy did not make an Eruv Chatzeros with the residents of the Chatzer. Why does Rashi say that the presence of the Chatzer prohibits carrying in the Mavoy?

(b) Similarly, why does Rashi conclude that the Reshus ha'Rabim does not prohibit carrying since there is a Pesach between it and the Chatzer? The Gemara suggests the opposite -- that it is the Reshus ha'Rabim that prohibits carrying in the Mavoy!

(c) Furthermore, when Rashi explains why the Chatzer prohibits one from carrying in the Mavoy, why does he introduce a new reason: that the people in the Chatzer "walk through" the Mavoy and are considered to be dwelling in it? Even without this reason, it should be prohibited to carry in the Mavoy because of the concept of "Parutz b'Milu'o" -- the Mavoy is completely open at one end, and that end leads into the Chatzer. As Rashi explains numerous times here (see DH u'Mavoy, DH Kan she'Irvu), such a breach causes the residents of the Chatzer to be considered distinct from the residents of the Mavoy, while it causes the Mavoy to be considered one with the Chatzer. This has nothing to do with the fact that pedestrian traffic flows in a path from the Chatzer to the Mavoy!

(d) Why does Rashi need to explain at all, at this point, why carrying is prohibited in the Mavoy? Rashi is not yet up to the part of the Beraisa that says that carrying is prohibited in the Mavoy. At this point, Rashi is discussing the reason why one is permitted to carry in the Chatzer. Only in his next comment does he discuss the status of the Mavoy!

ANSWERS: Rashi was bothered by the following question: From the Gemara here it is evident that when there is a Pesach between the Mavoy and the Chatzer, one is permitted to carry in the Chatzer even when no Eruv Chatzeros or Shituf Mavo'os exists between the Chazer and the Mavoy. This assumption, however, contradicts every other discussion of Mavoy and Chatzer in Maseches Eruvin. Every Mavoy must have a Shituf Mavo'os in order to permit its residents to carry in it! Even though there normally is a Pesach between the Mavoy and its surrounding Chatzeros, the Mavoy and the Chatzeros are nevertheless considered one entity and a Shituf is required in order to permit one to carry in the Mavoy. Why, then, does it make a difference whether or not there is a Pesach between the Mavoy and the Chatzer?

Rashi explicitly addresses this question later (8a, DH b'Nir'eh). He explains that Chatzeros normally prohibit carrying in the Mavoy into which they open even when there are entranceways between them, since the residents of the Chatzeros are "to be found" in the Mavoy. That is, since they must walk through the Mavoy in order to get to a Reshus ha'Rabim, they are considered as part of the Mavoy even though an entranceway separates the Mavoy from the Chatzer. In the case that the Gemara here discusses, however, the Mavoy does not become one with the Chatzer when an entranceway separates them, because in this case the people in the Chatzer do not usually pass through the Mavoy in order to get to a Reshus ha'Rabim. They normally walk out to a Reshus ha'Rabim through a different exit. It just happened that the wall between the Mavoy and the Chatzer fell down (Nifretzah), creating a new exit for the people in the Chatzer. In such a case, the Mavoy is considered as one with the Chatzer only when the two are not separated by a Pesach, an entranceway.

This is Rashi's intention here as well. Accordingly, we can answer all of our questions as follows:

(a) Rashi does not mean to suggest that in the case of the Gemara here, the breach between the Mavoy and the Chatzer causes the prohibition of carrying in the Mavoy. Rather, he means that in a normal Mavoy, the Chatzeros cause the prohibition of carrying in the Mavoy.

(b) When Rashi says that the opening to Reshus ha'Rabim does not prohibit one from carrying, he is not addressing the Mavoy, but rather the Chatzer. One is permitted to carry in the Chatzer in this case, because the Reshus ha'Rabim is separated from it by an entranceway, a Pesach. The Gemara assumes that the breach to the Reshus ha'Rabim prohibits the people in the Mavoy from carrying because it makes the Mavoy look like a Mavoy Mefulash (a Mavoy that pierces from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another), as Rashi writes later (DH u'Mavoy), even though it is not actually a Mavoy Mefulash. (If it would be a real Mavoy Mefulash, carrying in the Chatzer would also be prohibited; see Rashi to 8b, DH ul'Rabah.)

(c) Rashi introduces the logic that the residents of the Chatzer are considered residents of the Mavoy since they "walk through" the Mavoy, because he wants to explain why a normal Chatzer prohibits carrying in a normal Mavoy, even though the two areas are separated by an entranceway.

(d) Rashi discusses the prohibition of carrying in a normal Mavoy at this point in order to explain why an entranceway permits one to carry in the Chatzer in the case of the Gemara here, even though it does not normally permit one to carry in a Mavoy which is separated from a Chatzer by an entranceway.