Siman 358

It has already been explained that according to the Torah, any place that has four partitions is a complete reshut hayachid according to the Torah. However, the sages forbade carrying in it, as in a karmelit, until the enclosure is an enclosure for dwelling, for then it is like a person's house and courtyard. But when it was not enclosed for dwelling, it is like a type of field for stringency, such that one may not carry in it more than four amot. However, this is when the area of the enclosure is more than beit satayim, which is a place that holds seventy amot in length and seventy amot in width and a few tefachim and another small amount that the sages were not particular about, and in the language of the Gemara it is seventy amot and remnants; for up to this measure and including it, one does not need an enclosure for dwelling, and from there onwards one needs an enclosure for dwelling, and if not, it is forbidden to carry in it more than four amot.

And the reason for the matter is that it is already known that all matters of Shabbat we learn from the labor of the Mishkan, and the courtyard of the Mishkan was one hundred cubits in length and fifty in width, as it is written: "The length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits, and the width fifty by fifty." And the plain meaning of the verse is that the Torah commanded to place the Mishkan, which was thirty in length and ten in width, at the edge of the fifty, so that there would be fifty cubits before it and twenty cubits on each and every side. (Eruvin 23b) And according to the midrash, our sages, of blessed memory, received that the Torah said: take fifty, which is the amount the length exceeds the width, and surround the fifty so that it shall be a square. And when you cut a piece of fifty by fifty into five pieces, there will be in each piece fifty in length and ten in width. And you place four pieces on the four sides, behold it is seventy by seventy, except that the corners are lacking ten by ten in each corner. And you take from the fifth piece four pieces of ten by ten and fill the corners, and there remains one piece of ten by ten. And when it is cut into strips, and we surround the entire perimeter which is two hundred and eighty cubits, there will reach a small amount more on the length and on the width, and it will not reach a cubit by any means, for in this piece we have only one hundred pieces of a cubit by a cubit.

And behold, the courtyard of the Mishkan was not an enclosure for dwelling, for no man dwelt there, only the holiness hovered there. For this reason they said—that up to the measure of this enclosure, one does not require an enclosure for dwelling, and for more than this—one requires an enclosure for dwelling. And know, that which we said seventy cubits is not exactly so, for it is seventy cubits and four handbreadths by seventy cubits and four handbreadths, and these are the remainders, and yet a small amount more remains that they were not particular about. (See Rashi there and you will find the exact calculation). And this is according to the measurement of our country Russia, forty-eight arshin in length by forty-eight in width, for every four cubits in the Gemara are three of our arshin. And according to the measurement of the sazhen, they are sixteen sazhen in length and sixteen in width, for every one of our sazhen is four cubits in the Gemara, and every handbreadth is two vershoks, as we explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 218, and therefore such a place does not require an enclosure for dwelling, and more than this requires it.

This area which we said does not require an enclosure for a dwelling, there is no difference what shape it is, whether square or round, or if its length is greater than its width, even by double, such as its length being one hundred and its width fifty. But if its length is greater than its width by more than double, it requires an enclosure for a dwelling. And the reason is because in the courtyard of the Mishkan, its length was not more than double its width. And specifically by an extra amah, but less than an amah is nothing. And a full amah prohibits, even if in total it is not more than a beit satayim. (Rashi ibid. 103a, s.v. "im") And it appears that even if in total it is less than a beit satayim, for less than a beit satayim and a beit satayim have one law, and if it was enclosed for a dwelling—even if it contains several mil, it is permitted.

In an area enclosed for dwelling, we require that at the time of the enclosure it be for dwelling. But if the enclosure was not for dwelling, and afterward one opened a dwelling house there—it is not effective, and this is called "enclosed and afterward opened," meaning that he first enclosed not for the sake of dwelling, and afterward opened a dwelling house, and we require "opened and finally enclosed." However, if it was "enclosed and finally opened," there is a remedy, to make a breach greater than ten, and it is like a nullification of the enclosure, and afterward he shall fence the portion greater than ten, and it is like "opened and finally enclosed," and more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

And what is called enclosed for a dwelling, and not enclosed for a dwelling? Behold, gardens and orchards and watchtowers—this is not an enclosure for a dwelling, and even though there is a small building there where the watchman lives within it—this is not made for a dwelling but for guarding. And even if he wants afterward to make a complete dwelling house there—it is not effective, for it would be an enclosure and afterward an opening. And so it appears that a beit knesset and a beit midrash and a bathhouse, if there is no dwelling there for the attendant or for the watchman of the bathhouse—it is not enclosed for a dwelling, for the fact that they pray and learn there is not considered a dwelling, just as the Mishkan was not called enclosed for a dwelling; and so too in a bathhouse. And so too a karpef that is behind the city where they place wood (Mishnah at the beginning of chapter 2) or other merchandise—it is not called enclosed for a dwelling.

Enclosed for dwelling—this refers to courtyards that are in front of houses and muktzot, which is an open area behind houses. And even places where people do not actually dwell, but it is made for constant entry and exit—it is considered enclosed for dwelling. For example, a dir for animals that they make in the fields, today here and today there, in order to fertilize it with animal dung (ibid. in the Mishnah), and similarly a sahar made for the animals of a city. And for this reason, the pasi biraot are also called enclosed for dwelling, because they enter and exit there constantly to drink. (ibid. and in Rashi s.v. "v'chatzer" and Tosafot s.v. "afilu"). And it has already been explained that even regarding an enclosure for dwelling, we require the dwelling first and afterward the enclosure. But if he enclosed and finally opened a doorway—it is not effective. Therefore, it is explained below in siman 401 that ordinary towns are considered enclosed for dwelling, and ordinary fortresses are not considered enclosed for dwelling, because in most towns they build the houses and afterward enclose the city, and in ordinary fortresses they enclose and afterward build the houses. (See our teacher Yonatan who wrote regarding a dir when there is a dwelling house there for the watchman).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: "And some say that our standard karpifot are considered enclosed for dwelling, as it is customary to make the opening first and afterwards to enclose. And some say further, that any karpaf which is adjacent to his house is considered an enclosure for dwelling, for his mind is upon it; and some disagree regarding this." Thus far his words; he was brief in his words. And the first law is from the Mordechai there, who wrote that nowadays our karpifot are enclosed for dwelling, and so it is customary to make the opening first and afterwards to enclose. Thus far his words. That is to say, even though it has been explained that a karpaf behind the city where wood is placed is not considered enclosed for dwelling, this is because they were not entering and exiting it constantly, but nowadays, they enter and exit it constantly. And if it is because we require the opening and then the enclosure, our karpifot are also thus, for first they open the opening of this dwelling in it, and afterwards they enclose it. And he wrote further, that a karpaf adjacent to his house within the Shabbat limit is considered an enclosure for dwelling, for his mind is upon it, and some disagree. And behold, as it appears, this is entirely redundant, for since he wrote previously that all our standard karpifot are enclosed for dwelling, which is not similar to the karpifot in the time of the Gemara, what relevance does this dispute have, which pertains to the time of the Gemara? And it must be said, that he brought this even for one who does not hold of the previous law. (See Magen Avraham subsection 4 who wrote that regarding a watchman's hut and a dwelling house even the Tosafot admit that it is effective, see there. And the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 12 already challenged him, for it is explicitly proven that even in this they disagree, see there, and so we find in the Beit Yosef. And as for the fact that the Rema did not mention this, it seems to me because it was obvious to him like the opinion of the Tosafot, that it is not effective; and only regarding being adjacent to the city, where in any case according to the previous "some say" every karpaf is effective in this time, he also brought the opinion of the Hagahot Ashri. However, regarding the essence of the matter, I do not know if the Hagahot Ashri disagree with the Tosafot, for it seems to me that they only wrote this to explain the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, and so it is explicitly explained in the Or Zarua HaGadol siman 130, see there and examine carefully).

It appears to me that the courtyard of a prison is called "enclosed for dwelling," even if it is very large and there is no dwelling there for the prison guard, because it is the dwelling of those who reside in the prison. And even though it is not pleasing to them to dwell there, and they are placed there against their will, nevertheless, in the end, it is a dwelling. It is proven in the first chapter of Yoma (10b) that a dwelling against one's will is called a dwelling, according to the sages, for the halacha follows them, see there. (And it is also obligated in a mezuzah if it belongs to an Israelite, as written in Yoreh Deah siman 286 at the end of section 4, see there.)

And know, that even though we have said that an area of two beit seah, and certainly less than this, does not require an enclosure for the purpose of a dwelling, and it is like an area greater than two beit seah that was enclosed for a dwelling—this is regarding the matter of carrying within it or to a courtyard and an alleyway. However, regarding the matter of carrying to a house, there is a distinction, and it will be explained in siman 372. And it has already been explained, that regarding an enclosure for a dwelling, we require that he first build the dwelling and afterward enclose it, or that he encloses adjacent to his house and first opens an opening for himself from his house to this place, and afterward encloses the place, and this is "an opening and finally enclosed." And it was likewise explained, that even if it was enclosed and finally opened, he does not need to breach the entire fence, but rather he breaches in it a breach greater than ten, and it turns out that the house is open to it without an enclosure, and he returns and fences the entire breach, or the measure exceeding ten amot, and the ten remains as an opening, and it is "an opening and finally enclosed." And even if he did not breach at one time, but rather breached an amah and fenced it and returned and breached an amah next to what he fenced, and returned and did so until they completed more than ten—it is permitted, since throughout this entire duration, "new faces" have come here. (Gemara 24.)

And if it is difficult for him to breach the wall, some say that he can perform another rectification, namely, to place much earth next to the wall from both its sides, and the length of the earth along the length of the wall shall be more than ten, and the width of the earth four tefachim, so that it will be a significant place, and he shall fill earth until there does not remain from the earth to the top of the wall ten tefachim, and it is as if the partition was nullified for more than ten amot. And it is not only necessary if there is a height of ten tefachim in the earth, for now it is like a new partition, and it is like a doorway and afterwards enclosed, but even if there is not a height of ten tefachim in the earth, nevertheless the first partition is nullified, since there did not remain ten tefachim from the earth to the top of the wall, and it is impossible to make the earth and the wall as one partition, since there is in the width of the earth four tefachim—it is a thing unto itself. And automatically afterwards, when he removes the earth from both sides of the wall, the wall becomes like a new partition, and it is a doorway and afterwards enclosed, for since for one Shabbat the partitions were nullified, they are subsequently like new partitions. And even though it is in his mind to remove the earth—nevertheless they nullify the partitions, for even a purse nullifies a partition, as is written in siman 372. And nevertheless some disagree with this rectification, for they hold that earth is not a nullification unless he does not intend to clear it from there, and this law in its particulars will be explained in siman 372 בס"ד.

A mound ten tefachim high—its law is like a karpef, for up to a beit satayim it is permitted to carry in all of it, and if it holds more, it is forbidden to carry in it, except for four amot. And if one made mechitzot on the mound ten tefachim high, and made a dwelling there and an entrance and subsequently enclosed it—it is permitted to carry in all of it (as is implied in the Gemara 105a, see there). And one should be in doubt regarding a pit, a trench, and a cave that are larger than a beit satayim, whether it is permitted to carry in all of it, or only four amot. And seemingly they are similar to a mound, but in the Mishnah (23a) there is one who holds that they create a dwelling for others, see there. And granted that we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless they themselves are certainly called a dwelling. And also there is no proof that the halacha is not so, and the pit of the strips of the wells shall prove it, for they create a dwelling for the area between the strips. However, from this there is no proof, except to explain that it contains water, but not for a pit, trench, or cave where there is no water. (And it requires further study, and see the end of the chapter "Keitzad Me'abrin" and examine it closely).

A karpef larger than two se'ah, and one comes to diminish its size with trees that he plants within it, until excluding the place of the trees there would not be more than two se'ah—this is not a diminution, for trees do not nullify the airspace, as it is the way of a karpef to have trees in it. And even if he sowed seeds in the remainder, and it will be explained later that seeds nullify a person's dwelling, nevertheless it is simple that it does not diminish the karpef, for it itself is a karpef, and it is worse than a karpef, and the whole thing is one long karpef. And if he built a pillar in it to diminish it from more than a beit se'atayim, and it was diminished by this, if it is three tefachim wide—it is a diminution, and less than three tefachim—it is nullified to the karpef and is not a diminution. And even though in every place importance is four tefachim, nevertheless since in three there is importance, in that it leaves the law of lavud—it diminishes. (Gemara) And know, that the trees we said do not diminish in a karpef, even if they are many, and even if each one of the trees is ten high and four wide. And it is not similar to a pillar, because trees are an ornament for a karpef, and how could they diminish it. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: that the same law applies if he dug a pit in it—it does not diminish it. And the reason—for a pit is a use for a garden to water it. (Magen Avraham subsection 9 in the name of the Rashba) And according to this it would imply, that a pit that does not have water in it, or that is not in a garden but only in a karpef—the pit diminishes. But from the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is clear that even in a karpef it does not diminish, for he is dealing with a karpef, and also the Ritva wrote that a pit does not diminish in a karpef. And one can say the reason is because a karpef is fit for sowing, and the pit is fit for water. (And see Tosefot Shabbat subsection 18 who wondered at this).

If one built a new partition more than ten cubits in length in front of the first partition to nullify the first, so that it should be as if it does not exist in order that this partition should be a "doorway and subsequently enclosed," such as where he now opened a doorway for it from the house before he built the second—if he distanced it three tefachim from the first, it is permitted; but less than three, it is nothing other than an addition to the first, and it is one partition, and it is nothing. And similarly, if he plastered with clay upon the first partitions to diminish its airspace—meaning that through the thickness of the clay, the area greater than a beit satayim was diminished, and after the plastering there is no more than a beit satayim—if the clay is so thick that if the partitions were removed the plastering could stand on its own, it is a diminution, because it is a lasting thing; and if not, it is as if it does not exist, and it is not a diminution. And one should not ask: even if it can stand on its own, why do we not require that it be three tefachim distant from the wall, as in the previous law? Because they are not similar; for in the previous law there is still more than a beit satayim, and the permission is due to "doorway and subsequently enclosed," therefore it is necessary that the first partitions be completely nullified, and this is only if the second ones are three tefachim distant. This is not the case in this law, which is due to the diminution of airspace; we do not care about the first ones, and we only require that the second ones be a permanent thing. (However, according to the sugya of the Gemara 25a, it is difficult, for in the previous law the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled like Rabbah, and in the second law like Rava. And it must be said that they hold like Rav Shimi and according to the explanation of Rashi, see there. And the Rambam indeed ruled even regarding plastering with clay like Rabbah, that even when it cannot stand on its own it is a diminution; and see Beit Yosef and Bach and Tosefot Shabbat).

If he built partitions upon the initial partitions in order to enclose it by means of them—it is of no effect, for they are redundant. However, if the lower ones fell and the upper ones remained on their own—it is permitted by means of them, for behold, he now dwells between the lower ones. And this is regarding partitions upon partitions, but a mound larger than two se'ah where he made partitions, even on its edge, where from the outside the height of the mound is recognizable as being partitions themselves, and he enclosed them for dwelling according to the law—it certainly is of effect, for behold, his dwelling is between the partitions that he made, and since there was an opening in them and it was subsequently enclosed—it is permitted.

It has already been explained that trees do not nullify a person's dwelling, for on the contrary, trees are planted for beauty. However, seeds, such as gardens and field crops, nullify a person's dwelling, as it is not the way of people to sow in their dwelling but rather outside their dwelling; and when he sowed, he nullified the dwelling. Even if it was a complete dwelling, where he opened a door and subsequently enclosed it, the seeds nullify it, and the place becomes like all gardens which are like a karmelit. However, there are details in this: if the majority of the courtyard was sown, the minority is nullified relative to the majority, and it is forbidden to carry in the whole of it. If a minority of it was sown, if there are only two se'ataim in the minority, and certainly if less, the minority is nullified relative to the majority, and it is permitted to carry in the whole of it. But if there is more than two se'ataim in the sown area, it is impossible for it to be nullified, for behold it is a complete karmelit. And granted that the courtyard is also not nullified to it, since it is the majority, nevertheless, it is breached in its fullness to a forbidden place, and automatically it is forbidden to carry in the entire courtyard.

According to what we have written, so it is in the Gemara (24a) and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, except that they distinguished between a karpef and a courtyard, as will be explained. And the words of the Rambam in chapter 16, law 6, are perplexing regarding this matter, for he wrote: "An area larger than beit satayim that was enclosed for dwelling, if a beit satayim of it was sown—it is permitted to carry in all of it. And if the sown area was more than a beit satayim—it is forbidden to carry in all of it. If he planted the majority of it—it is like a courtyard and it is permitted to carry in all of it." Thus far his words. And he did not distinguish regarding what is sown between the majority of it and the minority of it. And it is even more perplexing, for he wrote "an area larger than beit satayim, if a beit satayim was sown—it is permitted," and "larger than beit satayim" includes even a little more, and when a beit satayim is sown, it is the majority of it, so how is it permitted to carry in all of it? (And it requires great study that the commentators did not remark upon this.)

And what appears to my humble opinion is that the words of the Rambam are clear in their reasoning, and he explains a different interpretation of the Gemara there. Because it was difficult for him: how is it possible to say that if the majority was sown it is forbidden, even if it does not contain more than a beit satayim? For behold, it is explained in the Mishnah there that a garden or a karpaf that are not more than a beit satayim do not require an enclosure for dwelling, and if so, why would they forbid the remainder of the courtyard, for behold, even for themselves they are permitted. Rather, it is certainly so, that in a case of more than a beit satayim, even if they are a minority, they perforce forbid the courtyard because it is breached in its fullness; and since this is so, it follows that there is no distinction between a majority and a minority, but rather between more than a beit satayim and a beit satayim. (And in the Gemara there, this is its interpretation: "But its minority is permitted; we only said this regarding a beit satayim etc." — meaning, not because of its minority, but rather in relation to what was said there — "a karpaf that is more than a beit satayim and was enclosed for dwelling and its majority was sown — it is forbidden," and more than a beit satayim includes higher and higher even a hundred sein; and for this he explains that this which we would infer — "its minority is permitted" — is only when it is only a beit satayim, and in such cases it is truly not because of its minority that it is permitted; and examine this carefully.)

The reasoning of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch is that they hold that if the majority was sown, it is as if the whole was sown, for the minority follows the majority; and in the whole, it is more than a beit satayim, and it is as if more than a beit satayim was sown. In the first formulation in the Gemara, it explicitly says so, see there. Therefore, they hold that even in the latter formulation, it is so regarding this detail. But the Rambam holds that according to the latter formulation, we do not say this reasoning at all. It follows that according to the Rambam, in less than more than a beit satayim it is nothing, while according to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, when it is the majority of a karpef or a courtyard, it draws the minority after it and the whole is forbidden. Furthermore, it is clear from their words that if the majority was sown, even if there is in the sown area with the rest of the courtyard only a beit satayim, it is forbidden to carry from within them to the house and from the house to within them, because seeds nullify the dwelling status even in less than two se'ah. (And so wrote the Gra"z in section 17, see there). And in more than two se'ah, it is forbidden to carry even within them more than four amot.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9: "A karpef larger than beit satayim that was enclosed for dwelling, and one planted the majority of it with trees, even if they are not planted in rows—they do not nullify the dwelling. But if the majority of it was sown—the seeds nullify the dwelling, even if there are only satayim in them. If a minority was sown, if there are only satayim in it—it is permitted. More than satayim—it is forbidden." Thus far his words. And this is its explanation: that in the case of the majority—the minority follows the majority, and it becomes as if the whole of it were sown, and it is forbidden. (Magen Avraham, subsection 11; and what he wrote "more than satayim" is a separate statement and was printed in error). And the intent is, that if in total there is more than beit satayim—it is forbidden to carry in the whole of it more than four amot, and even if in total there is not more than satayim, because they nullify the dwelling, it is forbidden to carry from there to the house. But in the place itself—it is permitted to carry in the whole of it, according to the law of a karpef that is not more than beit satayim. But if its minority was sown, if there is only beit satayim in it—it is permitted to carry in the whole of it, for even though in the sown area the dwelling was nullified, behold there is not more than beit satayim in it. And the remainder that was not sown—is not nullified to the sown area, since the sown area is a minority. But it is forbidden to carry from this karpef to the house and from the house into it, for behold in the sown area the dwelling was nullified, and its law is like a karpef that was not enclosed for dwelling, from which it is forbidden to carry to the house. And automatically, from the permitted area it is also forbidden, because it is breached in its fullness to the seeds. (HaGaon Rav Zalman). And some permit carrying from the permitted area to the house, for it is not called "breached in its fullness" except when it is breached to a complete karmelit, where even within it it is forbidden to carry more than four amot. And this is if the sown area was more than beit satayim, but in a case like this where even in the sown area it is permitted to carry in the whole of it, and only to the house it is forbidden—it is not called "breached in its fullness" such that it would forbid the permitted area. (ibid.). And if the sown area is more than beit satayim—it is forbidden to carry in the whole of it more than four amot, for the sown area is a complete karmelit, and the permitted area is breached in its fullness. Therefore, if there is a fence between them—they have no connection with one another. And this is in a karpef when it was sown, but in a chatzer, the Rosh is in doubt if the seeds have this power to nullify the dwelling of the chatzer as the Tur wrote, see there; and in the name of Rashi he wrote that certainly they do not nullify, and see the end of the next section.

This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: "One who has a garden in his courtyard, if it is the majority of the courtyard, even if it contains only a beit satayim—he may not carry from it or from the courtyard to the house. And if it is more than satayim, he may not carry within it or within the courtyard except within four amot. And if it is the minority of the courtyard, that which is in it more than satayim—it prohibits the entire courtyard. And if it contains satayim or less—it is forbidden to take out from it to the house." Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: for in the previous section he explained the law of a karpef when it is sown, and here he explained the law of a courtyard when it is sown, and a courtyard is more lenient than a karpef. For in a karpef, when the majority of it is sown, even if it contains only satayim or less, if in total there is more than a beit satayim—it is forbidden to carry within them more than four amot, as was written in the previous section. But in a courtyard, this prohibition only exists when the sown area is more than a beit satayim. But when the sown area is not more than a beit satayim, even if in total there is more than a beit satayim—the prohibition is only the carrying from there to the house, but in the courtyard itself and likewise in the sown area—it is permitted to carry in its entirety, because the sown area does not have the power to nullify the dwelling status of the courtyard unless it is the majority, and also more than a beit satayim. And there is also a practical difference between it and a karpef when it is the minority of the courtyard or the karpef and does not contain more than a beit satayim; for in a karpef in such a case, we explained that it is forbidden to carry from the entire karpef to the house according to the first opinion in the previous section, but in a courtyard everyone agrees that only carrying from the sown area to the house is forbidden, but from the courtyard that is in addition to the sown area—it is permitted. And that which we said "everyone agrees" is not exact, but rather it means that here our teacher, the Beit Yosef, decided thus for leniency, and did not bring two opinions as in the previous section regarding a karpef. (So it appears in my humble opinion, and the Ha-Gaon Rav Zalman did not follow this path, see there and examine carefully.) The Tosafot and the Rosh are in doubt, that perhaps only in a karpef do the seeds nullify the dwelling status, and not in a courtyard or a plaza, and the Tur also brought this. And perhaps regarding an eruv of the entire city in a time of pressing need—one may rely on this, and also perhaps regarding a city it is called a minority of a minority, and now there are those who do not allow making a tzurat hapetach, and in such cases there is ability, and perhaps all this will suffice, and it requires further study.

And behold, now in our time, one who has a garden in a courtyard makes a fence for himself between it and the courtyard. And if so, regarding the courtyard itself, the garden neither adds nor detracts. Regarding carrying from the garden into it, if it is more than a beit satayim, it is completely forbidden; and if it is not more than a beit satayim, it is permitted to carry from it to the courtyard and from the courtyard to it. However, to a house, it is forbidden to carry from the garden, and likewise from the house to the garden; therefore, even from the courtyard into it, it is forbidden to carry vessels that rested in the house on Shabbat, and it will be explained in siman 372. (Taz, subsection 5). And when there is no fence among them, we have already explained. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 14, who distinguishes between a beit satayim and less than a beit satayim and disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote, see there; and there is no necessity for this, and the primary ruling is like the Shulchan Aruch and as we have explained, and examine this carefully).

A karpef larger than two beit se'ah that was enclosed for habitation and became filled with water: if they are fit for drinking, they do not nullify the habitation, even if the area where they spread is more than two se'ah, and even if they are very deep. And if they are not fit for drinking, their law is like that of seeds, provided that their depth is ten tefachim, for less than ten is like mud and mire which do not divide a domain for themselves. (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And when they are ten deep and are not fit for drinking, nevertheless they do not forbid the courtyard, for they themselves become a partition since they are ten tefachim deep. (ibid.) And it appears that we require that they be fit for human drinking as well. But if they are not fit for a human, even if they are fit for an animal, they nullify the habitation and their law is like that of seeds; for even the pits of the strips of the cisterns were fit for human drinking, as Rashi and Tosafot wrote on the Mishnah of "one makes strips," see there.

A karpef of three se'ah-volumes where one made a roof over a span of one se'ah-volume—the karpef is permitted, because the roof is like a partition, as we say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes," and only two se'ah remain. And even if the roofing of the roof is on a slant like our roofs, that is, they descend at an incline—nevertheless they were lenient in this as well, to say "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." (Tur) And a karpef that is exactly two se'ah-volumes and a courtyard that were breached in their fullness into one another—the karpef is forbidden, for it is now more than two se'ah-volumes; even though the airspace of the courtyard does not cause it to be considered more than two se'ah-volumes, since it was enclosed for a dwelling, and anything enclosed for a dwelling has no limit to its airspace, nevertheless the place of the partition that was breached makes it exceed (and makes it) more than two se'ah-volumes. And the courtyard is permitted—because there is no limit to its airspace. (ibid.) And it is simple, that for this reason the courtyard is permitted, but for another reason—it is forbidden, because it was breached in its fullness into a karpef. Therefore, if there did not remain for it door-posts from here and from there—it is forbidden. And that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that only the karpef is forbidden and the courtyard is permitted, this is when door-posts remained in the courtyard. (Magen Avraham subsection 15, and therefore the Beit Yosef leaves it unspecified and did not mention the permissibility of the courtyard, see there in section 13).

And know, that which was explained in section 14, that when one made a new partition along the length of the wall for more than ten amot and extended it three tefachim from the old wall, that the karpaf is permitted as a case of making an opening and subsequently enclosing—this is only as long as the new partition exists. But when it fell, it returns to its prohibition, for as long as it exists, it nullified the first one which was not for the purpose of a dwelling. But now, perforce one relies on the first one, and the prohibition returns to its place.