Hotzaah: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Gardens
(→Karpef) |
|||
| Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
#A plateau or island that has natural walls of 10 tefachim that is larger than 5000 square amot has the status of a karpef.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:3</ref> | #A plateau or island that has natural walls of 10 tefachim that is larger than 5000 square amot has the status of a karpef.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:3</ref> | ||
===Gardens=== | ===Gardens=== | ||
#One may not carry in a planted area, such as a garden, that is larger than 5000 square amot and it forbids carrying in the whole eruv. Whether it applies to our cities is a discussion. Some poskim are lenient since relative to the whole city it is insignificant.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=686&pgnum=174 Dvar Shmuel 259] writes that a garden in a city is not considered a karpef to forbid carrying in the city. He has 3 reasons: 1) Plants only make the area where they're planted forbidden if they're planted in a karpef, storage area for wood, but not in a city. A city which has a lot of people dwelling there, isn't nullified by a relatively small area of plants. 2) The plants which are made for temporary purposes isn't a karpef. Also, an area set aside for protection of the city isn't a karpef since it is meant to function as part of the city. 3) Making an eruv chatzerot permits a karpef. Chacham Tzvi 59 writes that although originally he disagreed with the Dvar Shmuel, later he defended it based on Rosh (Eruvin 2:2). Rosh isn't sure if the concept that plants nullify area of dirah, dwelling, is only true in a karpef or even in a chetzer. Also, perhaps even plants nullify dirah in a chetzer it wouldn't in a city. Biur Halacha 358:9 s.v. aval has difficulty with this Dvar Shmuel, though he seems like he agrees that it is an opinion to rely on in extenuating circumstance. Kaf Hachaim 358:84 quotes Maamer Mordechai who is strict, but also infers from Chida (Machzik Bracha 358:2) that he is lenient. See, however, Chida in [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7733&st=&pgnum=39 Shiurei Bracha 358:1] who seems to have retracted and is strict. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=263 Chazon Ish OC 88:25] is strict. | #One may not carry in a planted area, such as a garden, that is larger than 5000 square amot and it forbids carrying in the whole eruv. Whether it applies to our cities is a discussion. Some poskim are lenient since relative to the whole city it is insignificant.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=686&pgnum=174 Dvar Shmuel 259] writes that a garden in a city is not considered a karpef to forbid carrying in the city. He has 3 reasons: 1) Plants only make the area where they're planted forbidden if they're planted in a karpef, storage area for wood, but not in a city. A city which has a lot of people dwelling there, isn't nullified by a relatively small area of plants. 2) The plants which are made for temporary purposes isn't a karpef. Also, an area set aside for protection of the city isn't a karpef since it is meant to function as part of the city. 3) Making an eruv chatzerot permits a karpef. Chacham Tzvi 59 writes that although originally he disagreed with the Dvar Shmuel, later he defended it based on Rosh (Eruvin 2:2). Rosh isn't sure if the concept that plants nullify area of dirah, dwelling, is only true in a karpef or even in a chetzer. Also, perhaps even plants nullify dirah in a chetzer it wouldn't in a city. Biur Halacha 358:9 s.v. aval has difficulty with this Dvar Shmuel, though he seems like he agrees that it is an opinion to rely on in extenuating circumstance. Kaf Hachaim 358:84 quotes Maamer Mordechai who is strict, but also infers from Chida (Machzik Bracha 358:2) that he is lenient. See, however, Chida in [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7733&st=&pgnum=39 Shiurei Bracha 358:1] who seems to have retracted and is strict. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=263 Chazon Ish OC 88:25] is strict. See Minchat Yitzchak 6:33:1 where he implies that he's strict. | ||
* Petach Hakarpef p. 48 quotes Dovev Meisharim who suggests that the Dvar Shmuel is only relevant to plants planted after the city was enclosed, similar to Rosh's discussion. However, Petach Hakarpef rejects this because the Dvar Shmuel himself didn't connect his nuance with the Rosh. | * Petach Hakarpef p. 48 quotes Dovev Meisharim who suggests that the Dvar Shmuel is only relevant to plants planted after the city was enclosed, similar to Rosh's discussion. However, Petach Hakarpef rejects this because the Dvar Shmuel himself didn't connect his nuance with the Rosh. | ||
* Bear Sarim 16:38 p. 20-21 proves from Rambam against Dvar Shmuel. He quotes that Rav Iser Zalman Meltzer made this point as well. See Yaskil Avdi 2:111:6 s.v. vlinyan ikar.</ref> The lenient view is only lenient if the garden is not enclosed with walls that are 10 tefachim wall. If the garden has walls it is considered its own area and doesn't forbid carrying in the city, but it is forbidden to carry in it.<reF>Bet Meir 358, Biur Halacha 358:9 s.v. aval</ref> | * Bear Sarim 16:38 p. 20-21 proves from Rambam against Dvar Shmuel. He quotes that Rav Iser Zalman Meltzer made this point as well. See Yaskil Avdi 2:111:6 s.v. vlinyan ikar.</ref> The lenient view is only lenient if the garden is not enclosed with walls that are 10 tefachim wall. If the garden has walls it is considered its own area and doesn't forbid carrying in the city, but it is forbidden to carry in it.<reF>Bet Meir 358, Biur Halacha 358:9 s.v. aval</ref> | ||
#Many poskim hold that flowers that are planted for beauty are not considered a karpef since its purpose is to enhance living nearby.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 5:108, Chelkat Yakov OC 181:4</ref> Others disagree and hold that flowers are included in other plants which are considered a karpef.<ref>Divrei Chaim 2:28, Shoel Umeishiv 1:3:131 </ref> | |||
# A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with plants is no longer considered an area enclosed for dwelling since people don't walk on plants. If it is larger than 5000 square amot it is a karpef and forbidden to carry there. Also, any place adjacent to it and open to it is forbidden.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:9</ref> The same applies to plants in a yard that is considered not enclosed for dwelling.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:10</ref> | # A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with plants is no longer considered an area enclosed for dwelling since people don't walk on plants. If it is larger than 5000 square amot it is a karpef and forbidden to carry there. Also, any place adjacent to it and open to it is forbidden.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:9</ref> The same applies to plants in a yard that is considered not enclosed for dwelling.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:10</ref> | ||
# A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with trees is still considered an area enclosed for dwelling since people like to walk beneath the shade of trees.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:9</ref> | # A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with trees is still considered an area enclosed for dwelling since people like to walk beneath the shade of trees.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:9</ref> | ||
===Ponds and Lakes=== | ===Ponds and Lakes=== | ||
# A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with water that is 10 tefachim deep is no longer considered an area enclosed for dwelling, unless the water is drinkable.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:11</ref> | # A karpef that was enclosed for dwelling which was then filled with water that is 10 tefachim deep is no longer considered an area enclosed for dwelling, unless the water is drinkable.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 358:11</ref> | ||
