Shulchan Aruch · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
Talmudic sources, the underlying chakira,
and the positions of the Rishonim and Acharonim on the open area behind the houses
Subject:
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, siman שנ״ט — a single seif
with the commentaries: Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah, Shulchan Aruch HaRav, sources and notes
Mishnah Berurah: 5 entries on this siman
Written and edited by:
Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
- Introduction to the sugya — a karpef not enclosed for the sake of dwelling, and its source in Eruvin
- The underlying chakira — what kind of “dirah” validates the enclosure?
- The shiur of beis sasayim — the courtyard of the Mishkan and the border between rechavah and karpef
- The pesach that precedes the enclosure — why the order of operations decides
- The kushya of the threshing floor — and the terutz: we do not say the pesach was opened for the goren
- A rechavah of only beis sasayim — why it is not a separate domain
- The gloss of the Rema — nowadays they are by default enclosed for the sake of dwelling
- The ruling of the Acharonim — Mishnah Berurah and Shulchan Aruch HaRav
- Practical nafka minos — carrying and eruv in our own courtyards
- Summary of the positions and the line of decision
📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — a single seif
The siman consists of one seif, and its heading says so: and it contains one seif. That seif carries a gloss of the Rema — what Sefaria renders in small type inside the seif is the Rema speaking, not the Mechaber.
רחבה שאחורי הבתים יתירה על בית סאתים ולא הוקפה לדירה אין מטלטלין בה אלא בד' אמות ואם פתח לה פתח מביתו ואחר כך הקיפה אפילו אם יש גורן בינה לבית הוי היקף לדירה: הגה ומה שאין אנו נזהרין לטלטל בחצירות שאחורי הבתים משום דבזמן הזה סתמן מוקפין לדירה כמו שנתבאר לעיל גבי קרפף: (ד״ע)
1. Introduction to the sugya — a karpef not enclosed for the sake of dwelling
The source, and the link with the previous siman
Siman שנ״ט is a direct continuation of siman שנ״ח, the law of the karpef. Its root is the sugya in Eruvin (23a and onwards): every mechitzah in principle permits carrying within what it encloses — but a mechitzah that encloses a large area, more than beis sasayim, does not thereby make a full reshus hayachid unless it was put up for the sake of dwelling: הוקפה לדירה. Our siman applies that rule to a common case, the open area lying behind the houses.
The old urban layout, as the Mishnah Berurah describes it in opening the siman: an open space was left in front of the houses and another behind them; the one in front is called חצר (the courtyard), the one behind רחבה (the open area).
« אותו שלפני הבתים קרוי חצר ואותו שלאחורי הבתים קרוי בשם רחבה » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״א)
The difference is not one of name but of use. The courtyard serves all the uses of the house; it has therefore certainly been enclosed for the sake of dwelling, and one carries in it even if it is larger than beis sasayim — the Mishnah Berurah goes as far as ten korin.
« אפילו אם הוא יתר מבית סאתים ואפילו עשרה כורין מותר לטלטל בכולו » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״א)
The rechavah, by contrast, is by default not enclosed for the sake of dwelling, because the uses of the house are not carried on there to the same extent. Consequently, once it is larger than beis sasayim, the law of the karpef applies to it.
« אכן רחבה מסתמא לא הוקפה לדירה » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״א)
2. The underlying chakira — what kind of “dirah” validates the enclosure
The question of definition
חקירה. When we say of a place that it was enclosed for the sake of dwelling, what is the gader of the matter? Must the mechitzah be made for dwelling — or is it enough that the enclosure be subordinate to the house and serve it?
Two sides:
- First side — the intent of the one who encloses: what decides is his mind at the moment he puts up the mechitzah. If he enclosed with the use of the house in view, the enclosure is made for the sake of dwelling.
- Second side — subordination to the house: what decides is the relation between the enclosed area and the house. If the area opens onto the house and serves it, it is subordinate to it and is no “separate domain”.
The nafka mina: a rechavah that is no more than beis sasayim. On the first side it ought to be forbidden, since it was not enclosed for the sake of dwelling; yet the Magen Avraham, the Mishnah Berurah and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav permit carrying in it, and even into the house. A sign that what decides is the subordination: at that small measure there is no separate domain at all.
« אבל בית סאתים אין לה דין קרפף ומותר לטלטל ממנה לבית » (מגן אברהם שנ״ט סק״א)
« אבל אם אין בהקיפה רק סאתים אין לה דין קרפף ומותר לטלטל ממנה אפילו לבית לפי שאינה רשות מחולקת מן הבית לגמרי כמו קרפף אע״פ שלא הוקף לדירה » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״ג)
Worth noting, and worth re-reading in the text itself: the Mechaber, in our siman, says nothing about a rechavah of beis sasayim. He deals only with one that is larger than beis sasayim. The case of the small rechavah comes from the Magen Avraham — who draws it from the Beis Yosef — from the Mishnah Berurah and from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, each with his own reference.
3. The shiur of beis sasayim — the border between rechavah and karpef
« ובית סאתים הוא ה׳ אלפים אמה באמה רוחב » (משנה ברורה שנ״ח סק״ו)
The Shulchan Aruch, in the same place, gives the square form of that area:
« אבל אם היא סאתים שהוא שיעור ע׳ אמה וד׳ טפחים על ע׳ אמה וד׳ טפחים מותר לטלטל בכולו » (שו״ע או״ח שנ״ח:א)
The benchmark of the measure is the courtyard of the Mishkan, whose dimensions the Mishnah Berurah recalls, together with the reason the Sages leaned on it: one hundred amos long by fifty wide — five thousand square amos, which is precisely beis sasayim, and carrying was done there.
« שמצינו בחצר המשכן שארכו מאה ורחבו חמשים » (משנה ברורה שנ״ח סקי״א)
« וסמכו חכמים בשיעור זה אשיעורא של חצר המשכן שהיה ב״ס בכולו » (משנה ברורה שנ״ח סק״ח)
Two distinct laws in the rechavah:
- A rechavah larger than beis sasayim that was not enclosed for the sake of
dwelling — the law of the karpef: one carries in it only within four amos,
and all the more so is it forbidden to carry from it into the house.
« רחבה שאחורי הבתים יתירה על בית סאתים ולא הוקפה לדירה אין מטלטלין בה אלא בד׳ אמות » (שו״ע או״ח שנ״ט:א)
« וכ״ש שאסור לטלטל ממנה לבית » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״ג)
- A rechavah that is no more than beis sasayim — it does not have the
law of the karpef: it is permitted to carry from it into the house and from the house
into it, because it is not a domain separate from the house — and this although it was
not enclosed for the sake of dwelling.
« לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְשׁוּת מְחֻלֶּקֶת מִן הַבַּיִת כְּמוֹ קַרְפֵּף » (שו״ע הרב שנ״ט:א)
4. The pesach that precedes the enclosure — the order of operations decides
The chiddush of the seif. A large rechavah — larger than beis sasayim, and whose law would therefore seem to be that of the karpef — nevertheless becomes enclosed for the sake of dwelling if he opened a pesach to it from his house and then enclosed it.
« ואם פתח לה פתח מביתו ואחר כך הקיפה » (שו״ע או״ח שנ״ט:א)
The pesach that precedes the enclosure is the proof that decides: the enclosure was put up in order to serve the house. The Mishnah Berurah states it in the negative, explaining what “was not enclosed for the sake of dwelling” means:
« שלא פתח בהכותל פתח להרחבה קודם שהקיפה » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״ב)
The weight falls on the order. “He opened, and afterwards he enclosed” — precisely. Had he enclosed first and opened afterwards, the mechitzos would have stood with no connection to the house. This is a yesod laid down at siman שנ״ח, where the Shulchan Aruch defines what deserves the name “enclosed for the sake of dwelling”: either he built a dwelling house there, or he opened a pesach to the place from his house and enclosed it afterwards.
« ומה נקרא מוקף לדירה זה שבנה בו בית דירה או שפתח לו פתח מביתו ואח״כ הקיפו » (שו״ע או״ח שנ״ח:ב)
That same siman שנ״ח states what remains to be done when the order was reversed — not to tear down the whole enclosure, but to make in it a breach of more than ten, so that the house is found open onto an unenclosed space, the enclosure being then rebuilt:
« ואם היה מוקף שלא לשם דירה א״צ לפרוץ כולו אלא יפרוץ בו פרצה ביותר מעשרה » (שו״ע או״ח שנ״ח:ב)
5. The kushya of the threshing floor — and the terutz
קושיא. He opened a pesach from his house to the rechavah, but there is a goren — a threshing floor — between the house and the rechavah. Shall we not say that the pesach was opened for the goren, in order to go out and thresh, and not for the rechavah? In which case there would be no “pesach to the rechavah” here capable of validating it.
The Mishnah Berurah sharpens the case: it is a goren that was already there before the three mechitzos were put up — which is what gives the kushya its force.
« אפילו אם היה גורן אחורי ביתו קודם שהוקף השלש מחיצות » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״ד)
תירוץ. The Mechaber settles the matter in a single clause, without stating the kushya: even if there is a goren between the rechavah and the house, it is indeed an enclosure made for the sake of dwelling.
« אפילו אם יש גורן בינה לבית הוי היקף לדירה » (שו״ע או״ח שנ״ט:א)
The explicit formulation — “we do not say that it was for the goren that this pesach was opened” — is not in the Mechaber: it belongs to the Mishnah Berurah and to the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, who both spell the reasoning out.
« אין אומרים שבשביל הגורן נפתח פתח בכותל הבית ואין כאן פתח לרחבה אלא סתמא נפתח לרחבה והרי היא מוקף לדירה ומותר לטלטל בכולה ואפילו ממנה לביתו » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״ד)
« אֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁבִּשְׁבִיל הַגֹּרֶן הוּא שֶׁנִּפְתַּח פֶּתַח זֶה » (שו״ע הרב שנ״ט:ב)
The yesod of the terutz. Where the intent of the one who opened the pesach is in doubt, one follows the setam — what people ordinarily have in mind. And the setam of a pesach that gives onto the rechavah is that it was opened to the rechavah.
« אֶלָּא סְתָמָא נִפְתַּח לָרְחָבָה » (שו״ע הרב שנ״ט:ב)
This principle — going after the setam — is also the key to the gloss of the Rema read below: it reasons about what the courtyards of our own time are “by default”.
6. A rechavah of only beis sasayim — it is not a separate domain
Why, in a small rechavah — beis sasayim only — is it permitted to carry even into the house, although it was not enclosed for the sake of dwelling? The Shulchan Aruch HaRav gives the reason: because it is not a domain separate from the house the way a karpef is.
« לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְשׁוּת מְחֻלֶּקֶת מִן הַבַּיִת כְּמוֹ קַרְפֵּף » (שו״ע הרב שנ״ט:א)
In other words: the law “one carries in it only within four amos”, like the prohibition of carrying from it into the house, holds only for a karpef — a large area that is a domain in its own right. A small area adjoining the house is subordinate to it and is no distinct domain at all. The Mishnah Berurah states the same reason, adding one word: it is not separate from it completely.
« אבל אם אין בהקיפה רק סאתים אין לה דין קרפף ומותר לטלטל ממנה אפילו לבית לפי שאינה רשות מחולקת מן הבית לגמרי כמו קרפף אע״פ שלא הוקף לדירה » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״ג)
7. The gloss of the Rema — nowadays they are by default enclosed for the sake of dwelling
« ומה שאין אנו נזהרין לטלטל בחצירות שאחורי הבתים משום דבזמן הזה סתמן מוקפין לדירה » (רמ״א או״ח שנ״ט:א)
The sense of the gloss: the law of the siman remains what it is, and it is stringent for a large rechavah; but in fact the courtyards behind the houses are built with the use of the house in view, so that their setam is to have been enclosed for the sake of dwelling.
A remark. The Rema signs his gloss ד״ע — the siglum by which he marks, in the Shulchan Aruch, a view that is his own and not that of an earlier source — and refers back to what he wrote above concerning the karpef. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav identifies the place: siman שנ״ח.
« כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִמָּן שנ״ח » (שו״ע הרב שנ״ט:ב)
There is therefore no machlokes with the Mechaber here, but an addition about the state of the facts: the Mechaber's law is correct, only the case of an enclosure “not made for the sake of dwelling” is rare in practice. The Mishnah Berurah adds a point of vocabulary worth noting: the “courtyards” the Rema speaks of are the rechavah the seif was speaking of, not the courtyard in front.
« היינו רחבה דלעיל » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״ה)
8. The ruling of the Acharonim — Mishnah Berurah and Shulchan Aruch HaRav
9. Practical nafka minos
What the siman changes in practice:
- The size of the area: a back courtyard of less than beis sasayim — one carries in it, and even into the house, with no tikkun, according to the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah cited above. Beyond that, everything turns on whether the enclosure was made for the sake of dwelling.
- The order of building: one who acquired an already enclosed area and
only afterwards opened the pesach from his house — the enclosure came first, and the
law of the karpef would therefore seem to stand, short of resorting to the breach of
siman שנ״ח. The question is not so simple, however: the Rema, at that same siman
שנ״ח, brings that there are those who hold that our karpefos are by default reckoned
as enclosed for the sake of dwelling, since the custom is to open the pesach first and
to enclose afterwards — and he brings, in the same place, that there are those who
disagree.
« וי״א דסתם קרפיפות שלנו מקרי מוקפות לדירה דרגילים לפתוח פתח תחילה ואח״כ להקיף » (רמ״א או״ח שנ״ח:א)
- Nowadays: according to the Rema, the courtyards of houses are by default enclosed for the sake of dwelling. The nafka mina then bears on a place where it is evident that it was not built for the use of a dwelling — an enclosed lot used for storage alone, for instance.
- Eruv chatzeiros: even a rechavah in which carrying is permitted so
far as our siman goes still requires an eruv chatzeiros if it is shared among several
residents — the Mishnah Berurah lays down the condition in its very first ס״ק, in an
aside.
« אם הוא דחד גברא או של שנים וערבו יחד » (משנה ברורה שנ״ט סק״א)
10. Summary of the positions and the line of decision
יסוד. A mechitzah on its own does not make a full reshus hayachid over a large area: it must have been made for the sake of dwelling. For the rechavah lying behind the houses:
- Larger than beis sasayim and not enclosed for the sake of dwelling — the law of the karpef, four amos only.
- No more than beis sasayim — it is not a separate domain, and carrying is permitted in it, even into the house.
- The pesach preceded the enclosure — it is enclosed for the sake of dwelling, one carries throughout it, and the goren is no concern.
- The Rema — nowadays they are by default enclosed for the sake of dwelling; so writes the Shulchan Aruch HaRav as well (see Level 4).
For practice — according to the custom of the community and the ruling of a rav.
Going deeper
Level 3 — Synthesis: a structured recap, memory markers, decision trees and
rules of thumb.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Alter Rebbe (Shulchan Aruch HaRav).