The Mishnah (23a) teaches that one is permitted to carry in a Karpaf larger than Beis Se'asayim if it was Hukaf l'Dirah (fenced-in for residential purposes). If one plants seeds in the majority of the Karpaf, the entire Karpaf is no longer considered "Hukaf l'Dirah" and one may not carry in it on Shabbos. The Gemara discusses a case in which only a minority of the Karpaf was sown.

There are three concepts that must be defined in order to understand the Gemara.

1. The first concept is "Parutz b'Milu'o l'Makom ha'Asur." When 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 one Reshus. If one of those Reshuyos is a domain in which it is forbidden to carry, then the status of the other Reshus follows it and one is forbidden to carry in the second Reshus as well.

2. The second concept is "Parutz b'Milu'o l'Makom ha'Asur Lah." Even when it is permitted to carry in each of the two Reshuyos individually (in the case mentioned above), if it is not permitted 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 are like one large Reshus, and carrying in either of them is equivalent to carrying from one to the other.

3. The third concept is "Gagos v'Chatzeros v'Karpifos Reshus Achas Hen." Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan argue whether one may carry from one Chatzer to another Chatzer, from one Karpaf to another Karpaf, or from one rooftop to another rooftop, where carrying is permitted in each Chatzer, Karpaf, or rooftop by itself. The Rabanan say that one may not carry from one to another without 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 has its own individual Eruv) does not require an Eruv Chatzeros.

Based on this introduction, the Gemara may be understood as follows. In the case of a large Karpaf which was Hukaf l'Dirah in which a minority area of exactly Beis Se'asayim is sown with seeds (making that section Lo Hukaf l'Dirah), Rav Huna and Rav Yirmeyah 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.

Rav Huna says that although one would have been permitted to carry in the sown area alone and in the unsown area alone had they not been connected to each other (because the sown area of the Karpaf is not larger than Beis Se'asayim), now that they open to each other one is prohibited to carry in both. Rav Huna follows the opinion of the Rabanan (in rule #3 above) who prohibit carrying from a Chatzer to a Karpaf, and therefore he prohibits carrying in either area when they are exposed to each other on one full side (in accordance with rule #2). (When the sown area is less than Beis Se'asayim, Rav Huna permits carrying in the Karpaf. This is because the sown area is a relatively small part of the large, enclosed Karpaf, and therefore it does not annul the element of Hukaf l'Dirah. The Karpaf is still considered Hukaf l'Dirah because it is secondary (Batel) to the rest of the unsown, enclosed Karpaf. See RASHI DH d'Lo.)

Rav Yirmeyah argues and rules like Rebbi Shimon (in rule #3 above), who permits carrying from a Chatzer to a Karpaf. Therefore, he permits carrying in both the unsown area and in the sown area that open into each other, as long as the sown area is not greater than Beis Se'asayim. If the sown area would be more than Beis Se'asayim, carrying in it alone would not be permitted (since it is not Hukaf l'Dirah), and therefore carrying in the unsown area that is fully open to it would also be prohibited (in accordance with rule #1 above).

QUESTION: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) which teaches that if one of the loops (for the strap) on the side of a sandal that was Tamei (with Tum'as Midras) tears and is repaired, the sandal remains Tamei with Tum'as Midras. If the second loop (on the other side of the sandal) tears and is repaired, the sandal is no longer Tamei with Tum'as Midras, because the sandal is unfit for use without loops for the strap. Nevertheless, it is Tamei with Tum'as Maga of Midras, because the repaired shoe "touched itself" (while it was Tamei with Tum'as Midras) before the second loop tore.

Why does the Mishnah in Kelim say that the loops were repaired after they tore? The Halachah should be the same even when the loops were not repaired! When the first loop tears, the sandal is still usable and thus it retains its Tum'as Midras, and when the second loop tears, it is no longer usable as a shoe and therefore it loses its Tum'as Midras but remains Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras!

(a) RASHI (DH v'Tiknah) explains that it indeed does not make a difference whether the loops were repaired or not. Even if they were not repaired, after the first loop tears the sandal is still Tamei with Tum'as Midras, and after the second loop tears it is still Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras. This is because even without its loops, the sandal is a usable utensil and can become Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras. The reason why the Mishnah in Kelim says that the loop was repaired is because it wants to teach that even though the first loop was repaired and the sandal became a completely usable sandal, it still loses its Tum'as Midras when the second loop tears, because the sandal is not the same sandal that it was originally.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Aval Tamei) proves from the Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) that if both loops tear at the same time, the sandal is completely Tahor. This is because the sandal is not considered to be usable at all when both of its loops tear at the same time. Tosfos explains that it is for this reason that RASHI in Shabbos (112b, DH Aval Tamei) retracts the explanation that he gives here in Eruvin and explains, like Tosfos, that if the first loop is not repaired before the second one tears, the sandal is not even Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras.

(Tosfos points out that the second loop does not need to be repaired in order for the shoe to be Tamei with Tum'as Maga Midras. The Mishnah says that the second loop was repaired only for consistency with the first part of the Mishnah, in which the first loop necessarily was repaired. See Insights to Shabbos 112:4.)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the case of a certain Rechavah (an enclosed area behind a house) in the city of Pum Nahara. The Rechavah opened on one side into a Mavoy (which led into a Reshus ha'Rabim), and on the other side it opened into a path that led through the vineyards. That path ended at a river with high embankments. A Tzuras ha'Pesach (at the entrance to the Rechavah, where the path led into it) would enable people to carry in the Rechavah. By virtue of the fact that the Tzuras ha'Pesach would permit carrying on the path by providing it with a third wall, it would also serve to transform the Rechavah into an area that is Hukaf l'Dirah. Abaye ruled, however, that carrying in the Rechavah could not be permitted with a Tzuras ha'Pesach. Since the entrance to the Rechavah from the path was so narrow, the Tzuras ha'Pesach would have been knocked down by the camels that regularly passed through it.

Why, though, should it matter if the Tzuras ha'Pesach would have been knocked down by passing camels? At the moment that the Tzuras ha'Pesach was erected, it permitted the path by making it a separate area from the Rechavah, and it permitted the Rechavah by making it Hukaf l'Dirah. Since the Rechavah acquired the status of an area that was enclosed for residential use, the existing partitions around the Rechavah became reestablished as a residential enclosure by the Tzuras ha'Pesach, and thus they should keep that status even after the Tzuras ha'Pesach is broken or removed!

(a) The ME'IRI writes that since -- at the moment that it is erected -- the Tzuras ha'Pesach is destined to be knocked down, it is not a valid Tzuras ha'Pesach to make the area considered Hukaf l'Dirah. (This also seems to be the intention of TOSFOS to 11a, DH Ileima. See the footnotes to the Me'iri 2:31.)

(b) Generally, in order to make an area Hukaf l'Dirah, a new Mechitzah must be erected for the sake of using the area for residential purposes, in a place where there was no Mechitzah until now. In such a case, it is obvious that if the new Mechitzah falls down, the area it surrounded loses its status as an enclosed area (since the area is now lacking its Mechitzos). However, in the case of the Gemara here, Abaye teaches that even if the Rechavah was already enclosed by partitions (not for residential purposes), when one makes a Tzuras ha'Pesach between that area and the path, since ("Migo") it permits carrying in the road it also permits carrying in the Rechavah by making it considered Hukaf l'Dirah (see Rashi, DH Mehani Nami).

Consequently, if the Tzuras ha'Pesach falls, the Mechitzah of Hukaf l'Dirah becomes annulled regardless of how we view the Tzuras ha'Pesach: If the Tzuras ha'Pesach was considered a Mechitzah due to the logic of "Migo" in a place where there was no Mechitzah until now (even for the Rechavah), then now that it has fallen the Mechitzah has been annulled (even for the Rechavah), because it is as if a breach more than ten Amos has been made in the Mechitzah. If, on the other hand, the status of the enclosure of the Rechavah is not affected by the fall of the Tzuras ha'Pesach because, in reality, it already had its own Mechitzos before the Tzuras ha'Pesach was erected, then the Tzuras ha'Pesach never really added anything to the Rechavah in the first place. Therefore, regardless of how we view the Tzuras ha'Pesach, once the Tzuras ha'Pesach falls the Rechavah is not Hukaf l'Dirah. (M. KORNFELD)