Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 25

1) MAKING A "KARPAF" FIT FOR CARRYING

OPINIONS: The Gemara suggests a number of ways to permit carrying inside of a Karpaf which is larger than Beis Se'asayim. One of the ways is to build a new fence inside the Karpaf, at least four Tefachim away from the old fence, with the express purpose of fencing in the Karpaf for residential purposes. How long does this new fence have to be? Does it have to go around the entire Karpaf, or just along one side, or less?

(a) The RITVA explains that the new fence must run the entire length of one side of the Karpaf in order for the entire Karpaf to be considered Hukaf l'Dirah. If it is less than the length of the fence that it is "replacing," it serves no purpose. The area between it and the old fence is still usable (since the new fence does not cut it off from the Karpaf by reaching all the way to the ends of the old one, cutting it off from the Karpaf) veritably and the old fence still serves to enclose the Karpaf (BI'UR HALACHAH OC 358:6).

(b) The ROSH (2:4) says that the new fence must only be longer than ten Amos. It does not have to be as long as the side which it is enclosing. The Rosh's reasoning is based on the Gemara earlier (24a) which says that it is sufficient to permit carrying in a Karpaf by breaking down ten Amos of the old fence and rebuilding ten Amos with intent to enclose the area for residential purposes. We see from there that erecting just *ten Amos* of a new fence is considered sufficient to make the Karpaf enclosed for residential purposes. (That is, he holds that by building a fence ten Amos long alongside the old fence, it is considered as though one has re-fenced that section. The area between the old fence and the new fence is a separate Karpaf entirely, which is joined to the first by the gap between the end of the new fence and the end of the old fence.)

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 358:6) rules like the Rosh and says that as long as the new fence is longer than ten Amos, the Karpaf is considered Hukaf l'Dirah. The BI'UR HALACHAH adds that the new fence must be built within ten Amos from the old fence. (This is consistent with the reasoning of the Rosh, according to whom the gap between the end of the new fence and the end of the old fence is an entranceway joining two Karpafs. If the gap would be greater than ten Amos, it would be considered a breach and not an entranceway. We would have to view the area as one large Karpaf, ignoring the new fence.)

OPINIONS: Rav and Shmuel argue whether the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem" ("the edge of a roof-beam descends and encloses") applies to an awning covering part of a valley (which is less than Beis Se'asayim). What is the case in which they argue?

(a) RASHI says that they argue only regarding a case where there are *four* open sides to this awning (that is, it is merely a roof placed above four poles). If even one side has a real Mechitzah, then everyone agrees that "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem."

(b) TOSFOS in the name of RABEINU TAM explains that the argument is when there are *two or three* Mechitzos. If there is only one Mechitzah, everyone agrees that "Pi Tikrah..." does not apply, and if the awning has more than three Mechitzos (such as three and a half), everyone agrees that "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem."

QUESTION: Whether we understand the argument the way Rashi explains or the way Tosfos explains, how is it ever possible to apply the rule of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem?" Since there is no Mechitzah on the side where we are viewing the roof-beam to descend and enclose the area, the area is exposed and young goats are able to pass through it ("Gedi'in Bok'in Bo"). Whenever there is a gap off of the ground more than three Tefachim, "Gedi'in Bok'in Bo" prevents that area from being viewed as closed by a Mechitzah. Why, then, do we say that the edge of the roof-beam descends to form a Mechitzah despite the three Tefach gap under it?

ANSWER: Gedi'in Bok'in Bo does not invalidate a Mechitzah all the time. When a hanging Mechitzah is 10 Tefachim high, and the normal law of "Gud Achis" is used to extend it to the ground, Gedi'in Bok'in Bo prevents Gud Achis from extending it to the ground. However, when an area is covered and the law of Pi Tikrah is used, although it is working through the same principle as Gud Achis, Gedi'in Bok'in Bo does not prevent it from extending to the ground. (RITVA, 14a and 17b)

The logical grounds for this difference may be as follows. In order for a wall to be viewed as complete, it must serve not only as a wall, but it must serve as an indicator of a separate Reshus (i.e., act as a 'Heker'). If a ten-Tefach tall Mechitzah is raised more than three Tefachim, "Gedi'in Bok'in Bo" invalidates it because it does not serve its purpose of indicating that the area inside is separate from the area outside. However, when a roof-beam is viewed as descending to form a Mechitzah, the roof serves to indicate that the entire area under it is separate from the area outside. Therefore the presence of animals walking through the area is irrelevant. (M. Kornfeld)

25b