note: the question is on tosafos
the gemara mentions an aparent contradiction of two braises that talk about a bed seperating a room entirely; tosafos gives 3/4 reasons about how it works out. The question however is what is the logic of Tosafos' third response (the 'yesh seforim'), the bach in chapter 433 of the Tur begins answering it by saying that in reality the 'i nami' answer of tosafos is the same as the 'yesh seforim' either way how would it fit logicly.....?
The Gemara's answer still remains, i.e. if the bed is high it needs Bedikah and if it is low it does not.
Tosfos adds in the "Yesh Sefarim" that this is true even if the high bed has Etzim v'Avanim under it. Tosfos says that it is teaching a "Chidush"; although there are Etzim underneath, if it is high it does need a Bedikah, while a low bed even without Etzim underneath does need a Bedikah.
D. Zupnik
firstly thank you very much for responding
secondly: true, though according to the bach it is understood that the 'i nami' is the logic of the 'yesh seforim' (ie the people dont go under beds; rather it is normal to go over the bed) in that case what difference does it make whether the sticks/stones are underneeth or not?
Pinchas Kievman
There is a greater Chiddush if there are Etzim that although the use of the space under the bed is inconvenient still it needs Bedikah if the bed is high.
D. Zupnik