More Discussions for this daf
1. Beis Se'asayim - What is the Limud? 2. Tekoa

Gary asks:

Rashi Eruvin (91a):

v'Karpifos Reshus l''Chatzer l'Karpef Asur v'Afilu Hu she'Lo v'Eino Yoser mi'Beis Sa'asaim, d'Al Karchacha Hanach Karpifos b'she'Einan Yeserin Al Beis S'asaim ka'Amar, d'I b'Yeseirim- b'Ha Leima R' Shimon Metaltalin, Ha Karmalis Hi, v'Leika Man d'Palig d'me'Chatzer ha'Mishkan ka'Gamar

It seems from Rashi (m'Chater ha'Mishkan Gamri) that this is a real Limud in the same way that we learn out the 39 Malachos from the Mishkan.

My question -- from Where does Rashi get this?

I thought that the pshat is as follows:

Min Hatorah, whether the Karfef is Hukef L'Dira or not, it is considered a Reshut Hayachid. However Chazal treat a large Karfef that's not Hukef L'Dira as a Karmelit because it can be mistaken for a Reshut Harabim. How large does the Karfef have to be before Chazal treat it as a Karmelit? The Mishna says a Bayt Satayim. Why a Bayt Satayim? The reason is not given. However for the sake of those who do not know how large a Bayt Satayim is, Chazal tell us that it is the size of the Chatzer Hamishkan. The Chatzer Hamishkan is simply a siman of how large the Karfef must be before the issur titul takes effect. It is not the reason for Bayt Satayim being the shiur for Karfef.

So where does Rashi get the idea that there is an actual Limud from Chatzer Hamishkan?

Bayt Satayim comes up many times in Mesechet Eruvin, especially in reference to Karfef.

Rashi on Daf 15a says:

Ein Metaltilin Bo- Im Haya Hekefo Yoser mi'Beis Sa'asaim k'Chatzer ha'Mishkan v'Shiur Zeh Nasnu Chachamim l'Chol Hekef ha'Mesukan v'Eino Mesukan Kol Tzorcho, Kegon l'Mechitzah she'Ein Bo Shesi v'Eruv, b'Hai Pirka (Eruvin 16b) u'l'Hekef she'Lo Hukaf l'Dirah b'Perek Sheini (24a), v'Hacha Nami, I b'Omed me'Eilav Mukmas Shapir etc. Ho'il Lav l'Hachi Avida, Yahavu Beih Chachamim Hai Shiura

The first time it appears here in Eruvin, in a Mishna, is on Daf 18a...

Mutar l'Hakriv l'Be'er u'Bilvad she'Tehei Parah Roshah v'Rubah b'Fenim v'Shosah Mutar l'Harchik Kol she'Hu, u'Bilvad she'Yarbeh b'Pasin. R'Yehudah Omer Ad Beis Sa'asayim. Amru Lo Lo Amru Beis Sa'asayim Ele l'Ginah u'l'Karpef Aval Im Hayah Dir O Sachar O Muktzah O Chatzer Afilu Beis Chameshes Kurin, etc. Mutar, u'Mutar l'Harchik Kol she'Hu u'Bilvad she'Yarbeh b'Pasin.

The Mishna on Daf 23a continues with Karfef:

v'Od Amar R' Yehudah Ben Bava ha'Ginah v'ha'Karpef she'Hein Shiv'im Amah v'Shir'ayim Al Shiv'im Amah v'Shir'ayim ha'Mukafos Geder Gavohah Asarah Tefachim, Metaltalin b'Sochah, u'Bilvad she'Yehehe Bah Shomeirah O Beis Dirah, O she'Yehe Semuchah l'Ir

Tosafot asks why do Chazal learn out the shiur of Bayt Satayim (70x70, ie 150x50) from the Chatzer Mishkan. Let's learn the the shiur from the Mikdash, either from the Ezrat Nashim or from Har Habayis, both of which were larger than 70x70.

she'Hu 70 Amah v'Shir'ayim- v'Im Tomar Leilef mi'Har ha'Bayis v'Ezras Nashim she'Hayah 175 Amos v'Ezras Yisrael Hayah 187, v'Yesh Lomar d'Chol Mili d'Shabos mi'Mishkan Gamrinan le'Hu, I Nami ha'Azaros Mukafin l'Dirah Chashvinan le'Hu she'Hayu Shomrim Bah Kol ha'Laylah

Tosafot seems to agree with Rashi that Chatzer Hamishkan is not just a Siman, but it's an actual Limud. It's the reason Chazal chose Bayt Satayim in the first place.

However on Daf 23b the following Braita appears, also in regards to Karfef:

R' Yehudah Omer Davar Mu'at Yesh Al Shiv'im Amah v'Shir'ayim etc.

R.Yehuda is clearly using the Mishkan only as a Siman but not as a Limud. How big is a Bayt Satayim - the size of the Chatzer Hamishkan. He is not telling us why Chazal chose this shiur in the first place. If he was giving the reason he would say Amai Shiur S'asayim or Minalan Shiur S'asaim, not Kamah Shiur S'asayim.

So the question is where did Rashi and Tosafot come up with the idea that there is a real Limud from Chatzer HaMishkan?

Exploring this further I came across the following Braita in Melechet Hamishkan...

Beraisa d'Meleches ha'Mishkan (Kirschner) Chapter 5

he'Chatzer Arcah Me'ah Amah v'Rachvah Chamishim Amah... mi'Kan Hayah R' Yoseh b'Rebi Yehudah Omer Karpef she'Hu k'Beis S'asayim k'Chatzer ha'Mishkan Metaltelin b'Sochah b'Shabos

It seems that according to R.Yehuda's son, R.Yosi, we actually learn from the Mishkan that it's mutar to carry in a Karfef that is smaller than a Bayt Satayim. Obviously we don't need a pasuk to say it's mutar if the whole issur to begin with is only D'Rabanan. So the pshat is that Chazal didn't want to asur a Karfef smaller than a Bayt Satayim because it was standard practice to carry in the Mishkan even though it was not Hukaf L'Dirah.

Apparently it is a real Limud (in the sense that he is giving us a reason rather than a siman) and this may be the source for the earlier-quoted Rashi and Tosafot.


What kind of Limud is this? How can you learn the heter tiltul from what was done in the Mishkan? The Mishkan is different - tiltul had to be mutar there because Ayn Shvus B'Mikdash (yes I know there are many exceptions to this rule).

Your insights are greatly appreciated.

Incidentally, the expression ??? ????? comes from Eliyahu...

Melachim I 18:32- va'Yivneh Es ha'Avanim Mizbeiach l'Hashem va'Ya'as Ta'aleh k'Beis S'asayim Zera Saviv la'Mizbe'ach

Kol tuv,

Gary, Toronto, Canada

The Kollel replies:

1. The Tosfos ha'Rosh (23a), on the Tosfos you cited, who asks why we learn from the Mishkan and not from the Mikdash, adds on a little to the answer of Tosfos and writes: "d'Hachi Kim Lehu she'Yesh Lanu Lilmod mi'Chatzer ha'Mishkan v'Asmechuhu a'Kra"

(Chazal knew that one should learn Dinim from Chatzer ha'Mishkan and they made an Asmachta to establish this Din from a verse).

2. We can understand this somewhat better with the help of what the Tur (the son of the Rosh) writes in Tur Orach Chaim 358:1: "All of the Melachos of Shabbos and its laws are learned from the Melachah done in the Mishkan. Therefore, any area which was not surrounded for the purpose of residence, for instance gardens and orchards and 'Burgenin' which are made only with the intention of storage, even though Min ha'Torah they are purely Reshus ha'Yachid and someone who would throw into them from Reshus ha'Rabim is liable for a Korban Chatas d'Oraisa, nevertheless the Chachamim prohibited carrying inside them more than for Amos."

3. We learn from the above that the Limud is not a d'Oraisa Limud, because mid'Oraisa one can carry as much as one likes within a surrounded area. Rather, this is a Limud that Chazal learned in order to determine the size of the area in which one may not carry if it is not Hukaf l'Dirah.

4. So this is a real Limud, not merely a Siman. Rashi and Tosfos saw that the Gemara frequently refers to the Shi'ur of Beis Se'asayim and understood that this must have been derived by Chazal from the Mishkan in the same way that d'Oraisa laws are derived from the Mishkan.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom