Rezoning in the Talmud TB Eruvin 24

Yesterday’s daf introduced and defined a new area called a karpef (קַרפֵּף). Although there is much discussion in the Mishna of the requirements when one may carry in a karpef, the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva who said one may carry in a karfef which is any nonresidential enclosed area and is no larger than a beit se’a (5000 square amot = approx ½ acre). Even though a karpef larger than a beit se’a would still be considered a private domain by the Torah, the rabbis declared it to be a karmelit. A karmelit is defined as an area of 4 Tefachim by 4 Tefachim with walls which are less than 10 Tefachim in height. It also includes areas where the public doesn't walk and doesn't have proper fencing such as fields, or rivers which are 10 Tefachim deep. One is forbidden to carry anything more than 4 amot in a karmelit on Shabbat. Another halakha pertaining to a karpef is according to Rabbi Yossi who says that the karfef can take any shape, e.g. a rectangle or a square.

 I looked up the process of rezoning in New York City and found that it is a many step process (http://riker.com/publications/new-york-city-zoning-and-the-variance-and-rezoning-process#:~:text=A%20rezoning%20can%20take%20place,Use%20Review%20Procedure%2C%20or%20ULURP.). Today’s daf TB Eruvin teaches how to rezone a karfef that is larger than a bet se’a.

 “Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a karpef that is greater than two beit se’a, and which was not enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, what should one do if he wishes to carry within it? He should make a breach in the fence larger than ten cubits, which nullifies the partition, and then fence it off and reduce the opening to only ten cubits, which thereby creates an entrance. He is then permitted to carry in the karpef, because it is now regarded as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence.” (Sefaria.org translation) Remember the enclosed lot of a residence can be as large as one can afford. One has to make a breach larger than 10 amot because we previously have learned that a 10 amot or smaller breach is considered an entrance and not a breach. By making that large breach one has effectively rezoned the karpef that is greater than two beit se’a for habitation.

 Making a breach of more than 10 amot and then repairing it to create an opening of less than 10 amot at one time can be a lot of hard work. The Gemara asks the question whether this deconstruction and construction can be done incrementally. There is no rabbinic source that directly answers this question; consequently, two analogies are applied to learn the answer.

 “The Gemara raises a dilemma: If he did not make the breach at once, but rather he breached one cubit and fenced off that same cubit, and then breached another cubit and fenced it off, until he completed the breaching and fencing off of more than ten cubits, what is the law?“He said to him: Is this not as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become ritually pure through breaking the utensil, if they have holes the size of pomegranates.

 “And Ḥizkiya raised a dilemma: If a utensil was perforated with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it again, and this went on until the holes together completed a space large enough for a pomegranate to emerge, what is the halakha? In other words, is the ruling that because the sum of all the holes is the size of a pomegranate the utensil is pure, or is the ruling that it remains ritually impure because each hole was filled before the next hole was formed?

“Rabbi Yoḥanan his student said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears, i.e., straps, broke and he repaired it, it remains ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading [midras] and can still render people and utensils ritually impure. If one of a sandal’s straps is torn, it can still be used as a sandal, and therefore it does not lose its status as a utensil.

“If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure as would a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading. However, the sandal itself is ritually impure due to contact with an object that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading, i.e., the sandal before its second strap ripped. Therefore, it can transmit ritual impurity to food and liquids.

 “And you said about this halakha: What is different in a case where the first ear breaks, that the sandal remains impure? It is because the second one is intact. However, when the second ear breaks, the first ear is intact; so how does the sandal lose its utensil status? And then you said to us with regard to this that the reason it is no longer a utensil is because a new entity has arrived here. The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal. Here, too, with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times, where the sum of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, let us say that a new entity has arrived here, as the entire area of the hole is completely new, and the utensil is no longer the same utensil that had been ritually impure.

“Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being; rather, he is an angel, as he is capable of resolving a problem that I struggle with, from something that I myself taught. Some say that he said: This is an ideal human being. This parallel analysis teaches that if one breached one cubit and fenced it off, breached another cubit and fenced it off, and continued this way until he breached and fenced off more than ten cubits, then this is effective, and he need not breach more than ten meters at once.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We should all appreciate who is a critical and innovative thinker like Rabbi Yoḥanan. So yes, you can deconstruct and then reconstruct the wall incrementally around a larger than 1 beit se’a karfef to rezone it and permit carrying within it.