Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 24

1) TWO "RESHUYOS" THAT OPEN INTO EACH OTHER

SUMMARY: It is permitted to carry in a Karpaf that was larger than Beis Se'asayim if it was Hukaf l'Dirah (Mishnah 23a). If one planted seeds in the Karpaf, or in a majority of it, the *entire* Karpaf is considered no longer "Hukaf l'Dirah" and one may not carry in it on Shabbos. The Gemara discusses a case where a minority of the Karpaf was sown. In order to better understand this Gemara, we need to be familiar with the following concepts:

(a) PARUTZ B'MILU'O L'MAKOM HA'ASUR - Whenever two different Reshuyos are *entirely* exposed to each other on one of their sides ("Parutz b'Milu'o"), the two Reshuyos are considered to be as one. If one of those two Reshuyos is one in which it is *forbidden* to carry, then the other is drawn after it and it is forbidden to carry in it as well.

(b) PARUTZ B'MILU'O L'MAKOM HA'ASUR *LAH* - Even it is permitted to carry in each of the two Reshuyos individually (in the above case), if it is not forbidden to carry *from one to the other* one may not carry in either Reshus. Since they are exposed to each other on one full side, the two Reshuyos as like one big Reshus, and carrying in either of them is equivalent to carrying from one to the other.

(c) GAGOS V'CHATZEROS V'KARPIFOS RESHUS ACHAS HEN - Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan argue whether one may carry from one Chatzer to another Chatzer, Karpaf or rooftop where, independently, carrying is permitted in each Chatzer, Karpaf or rooftop individually. The Rabanan say that one may not carry from one to another (without making an Eruv Chatzeros). Rebbi Shimon argues and says that an Eruv Chatzeros is necessary only when one wants to carry from a *private house* into a *public Chatzer*. Carrying from one public Chatzer into another public Chatzer (in which each Chatzer individually has its own Eruv) does not require an Eruv Chatzeros.

Now let us return to our Sugya. If, in a large Karpaf which is Hukaf l'Dirah, a Beis Se'asayim (exactly) minority of the area is sown with seeds (making that section Lo Hukaf l'Dirah), Rav Huna and Rav Yirmiyah argue whether one may carry in the *unplanted* area, even though it is fully exposed on one side ("Parutz b'Milu'o") to the sown area.

(1) Rav Huna says that although it would have been permitted to carry in either the sown or the unsown area had it been alone (since the sown area of the Karpaf is not greater than Beis Se'asayim), now that they open to each other it is prohibited to carry in them. He follows the opinion of the Rabanan above [rule (c)], who prohibit carrying from a Chatzer to a Karpaf, and therefore prohibits carrying in either area when they are exposed to each other on one full side [because of rule (b)]. (If the sown area is *less* than Beis Se'asayim, he permits carrying. The reason for this is that the sown area is only a relatively small part a large enclosed Karpaf, and therefore it is not Mevatel the Hekef l'Dirah. That is, it is still considered Hukaf l'Dirah because it is secondary ('Batel') to the rest of the enclosed Karpaf which is not sown - RASHI DH d'Lo).

(2) Rav Yirmiyah rules like Rebbi Shimon [rule (c)]. It is permitted to carry from a Chatzer to a Karpaf. Therefore one may carry in both the unplanted area and the sown area which open to each other, as long as the sown area is not greater than Beis Se'asayim. If the sown area is *more* than Beis Se'asayim, it would no longer be permitted to carry in it by itself (since it is not Hukaf l'Dirah), and therefore it would not be permitted to carry in the unplanted area that is fully open to it as well [rule (a)].

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Mishnah from Kelim which states that if one of the strap-rings on the side of a sandal (which was Tamei with Tum'as Midras) tears and is repaired, the sandal is still Metamei Tum'as Midras. If the second ring (on the other side of the sandal) tears and is repaired, the sandal is no longer Metamei Midras, since it is not fit to be walked upon without strap-rings. Nevertheless, it is Metamei *Maga* of Midras, because the repaired shoe "touched itself" before it tore the second time (i.e. while it was Tamei with Tum'as Midras).

Why does the Mishnah say that the rings were *repaired* each time after they broke? The Halachah would seem to be the same even if the rings were not repaired -- when the first ring tears, the sandal is still usable and thus it retains its Tum'as Midras, and when the second ring tears, it is no longer usable as a shoe and therefore it loses its Tum'as Midras but is Tamei with Maga Midras!

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH v'Tiknah) explains that it does not make a difference whether the rings were repaired or not. Even if they were not repaired, after the first ring tore the sandal is still Metamei Midras, and after the second ring tore it is still Metamei Maga Midras. That is, even without its strap- rings the shoe is a usable utensil and is able to become Tamei with Tum'as *Maga* Midras. The reason the Mishnah states that the ring was repaired was to teach that *even though* the first ring was repaired and the shoe was a completely usable shoe, it still loses its Tum'as Midras when its second ring tears, because the shoe is not the same shoe that it was originally.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Aval Tamei) proves from the Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) that if both rings were torn at the same time, the sandal would be completely Tahor. That is, it is not considered to be a usable utensil at all if both of its rings rip at once. It is for this reason, explains Tosfos, that RASHI in Shabbos (112b, DH Aval Tamei) retracted what he wrote here (and what he originally wrote in Shabbos as well) and explained like Tosfos, that if the first ring was not repaired before the second tore, the sandal would not even be Tamei Maga Midras.

(Tosfos points out that the *second* ring did *not* have to be repaired in order for the shoe to be Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras. The only reason the Mishnah says that the second ring was repaired is to be consistent with the first part of the Mishnah, which stated of necessity that the *first* ring was repaired -- See Insights to Shabbos 112b)

24b