25a When Rashi DH Ho'il says all is mutar (vs only permitting a smaller area such as from the wall inward) would you agree that Rashi is referring to the entire karfaf being mutar, which includes the space between-the-wall-and-the- Tel and the Tel itself (which is under Beis Sa'sayim)? The latter would be comparable to earlier gmara where even Ginah section became permissible when dwelling section was fixed.
Daniel Gray, Toronto Canada
I do not think that I agree with this. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 358:8 write that the Tel is more than Sa'ataim (not under Beis Sa'sayim as you write). It seems to me that this can fit in with what Rashi DH Hircheek writes that there is a lot more than Sa'ataim between the Tel and the wall. This suggests that the Tel is large. The Mishneh Berurah #61 writes that it is only the upper walls that help because he lives above, not below. This all suggests that the main discussion here is to permit carrying on the large Tel above.
Kesivah veChasimah Tovah
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
1) I saw that the sefer Menachem Meishiv Nefesh (cited by Metivta in Biurei Rashi) writes that when Rashi writes that all is mutar, this means that both the tel is mutar (because here the tel does not have more than a Beis Sa'sayim) and the karpaf is also mutar.
2) There are a few reasons why I do not understand how the Menachem Maishiv Nefesh can say this. Firstly, if the tel is not more than Beis Sasayim then it does not require a wall to permit carrying inside it, since hukaf l'dirah is only required for an area of more than Beis Sasayim. Secondly, Rashi DH Hachi Garsinan writes that the tel is more than beis sasayim. It is true that Rashi DH Hachi is commenting on the second time that the Gemara mentions a tel, whilst Rashi DH Ho'il is commenting on the first time that the Gemara mentions tel (this is not like I implied in my first reply. What I wrote there was innacurate) but it seems to me that it is difficult to make this distinction, because the simple reading would be that it is the same kind of tel mentioned in both parts of the Gemara. Since Rashi writes explcitly that the second tel is more than Beis Sasayim then why should we not say that the first tel mentioned is also beis sasayim?
3) In addition Rashi DH Hircheek writes that the new mechitzah is only 4 tefachim away from the tel. This implies that since the mechitzah is so close to the tel, its main purpose is to permit carrying on the tel.
4) See also Lechem Mishneh on the Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 16:9 writes that the mechitzah was made for the people residing on the top of the tel.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom