Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 3, 2020 | 讟状讜 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 55

The gemara discusses what is considered part of the city and what is not considered part of the city regarding from where we would measure the techum. Straight lines are drawn from parts that protrude and if the shape of the inhabited part of the city is not square (i.e. round, rainbow-shaped, etc.) from where do we measure the 2,000 cubits?

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘专 讚讜住讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 诪注讘专 诇讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 砖讗诐 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇注诇讜转 讗讞专讬讛 讜讗诐 诪注讘专 诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇注讘讜专 讗讞专讬讛


And this idea, that one must exert great effort to retain one鈥檚 Torah knowledge, is in accordance with what Avdimi bar 岣ma bar Dosa said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥or is it beyond the sea鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:12鈥13)? 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥 indicates that if it were in heaven, you would have to ascend after it, and if it were beyond the sea, you would have to cross after it, as one must expend whatever effort is necessary in order to study Torah.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 转诪爪讗 讘诪讬 砖诪讙讘讬讛 讚注转讜 注诇讬讛 讻砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 转诪爪讗 讘诪讬 砖诪专讞讬讘 讚注转讜 注诇讬讛 讻讬诐


Expounding the verse differently, Rava said: 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥 means that Torah is not to be found in someone who raises his mind over it, like the heavens, i.e., he thinks his mind is above the Torah and he does not need a teacher; nor is it to be found in someone who expands his mind over it, like the sea, i.e., he thinks he knows everything there is to know about the topic he has learned.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 转诪爪讗 讘讙住讬 专讜讞 讜诇讗 诪注讘专 诇讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 转诪爪讗 诇讗 讘住讞专谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘转讙专讬诐:


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥 means that Torah is not to be found in the haughty, those who raise their self-image as though they were in heaven. 鈥淣or is it beyond the sea鈥 means that it is not to be found among merchants or traders who are constantly traveling and do not have the time to study Torah properly.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘专讬谉 讗转 讛注专讬诐 讗专讜讻讛 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讗 注讙讜诇讛 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转 诪专讜讘注转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转 讛讬转讛 专讞讘讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜拽爪专讛 诪爪讚 讗讞专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜讛


After the lengthy aggadic digression, the Gemara returns to the topic of the mishna, extending the outskirts of a city. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How does one extend the boundaries of cities? If the city is long, in the shape of a rectangle, the Shabbat limit is measured from the boundary as it is. If the city is round, one creates simulated corners for it, rendering it square, and the Shabbat limit is measured from there. If it is square, one does not create additional corners for it. If the city was wide on one side and narrow on the other side, one regards it as though the two sides were of equal length, adding to the narrow side to form a square.


讛讬讛 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讜爪讗 讻诪讬谉 驻讙讜诐 讗讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬 驻讙讜诪讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讞讜讟 诪转讜讞 注诇讬讛谉 讜诪讜讚讚 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讛讬转讛 注砖讜讬讛 讻诪讬谉 拽砖转 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讙讗诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 讜诪讜讚讚 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


If one house in a row of dwellings was protruding like a turret, or if two houses were protruding like two turrets, one regards them as though a cord is stretched over their outer edge along the length of the city, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there. If the city was shaped like a bow or like the Greek letter gamma, one regards it as though the interior space were full of houses and courtyards, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there.


讗诪专 诪专 讗专讜讻讛 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗专讬讻讗 讜拽讟讬谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讛 驻讜转讬讗 讗讗讜专讻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara proceeds to analyze the Tosefta. The Master said: If the city is long, the Shabbat limit is measured from the boundary as it is. The Gemara expresses surprise: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach this halakha only with regard to a case where the city is long and narrow. Lest you say: Let us give its breadth the dimension of its length and regard the city as if it were square, it teaches us that we do not do so.


诪专讜讘注转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪专讘注讗 讜诇讗 诪专讘注讗 讘专讬讘讜注 注讜诇诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬专讘注讗 讘专讬讘讜注 注讜诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Tosefta stated: If the city is square, one does not create additional corners for it. Once again the Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only with regard to a case where the shape of the city is square but that square is not aligned with the four directions of the world, i.e., north, south, east, and west. Lest you say: Let us align the square with the four directions of the world, it teaches us that this is not done.


讛讬讛 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讜爪讗 讻诪讬谉 驻讙讜诐 讗讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬 驻讙讜诪讬谉 讛砖转讗 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讗诪专转 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Tosefta also stated: If one house in a row of dwellings was protruding like a turret, or if two houses were protruding like two turrets, one regards them as though a cord is stretched over their outer edge along the length of the city, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there. The Gemara asks: Now, if with regard to one house, you said to extend the city鈥檚 boundaries, with regard to two houses, is it necessary to say so?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only with regard to a case where the two houses were protruding on two different sides of the city. Lest you say: When a house protrudes from one side, we say that the city is extended even due to a single house, but if houses protrude from two sides we do not say so; therefore, it teaches us to regard the city as though it is extended on both sides.


讛讬转讛 注砖讜讬讛 讻诪讬谉 拽砖转 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讙讗诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 讜诪讜讚讚 诪诪谞讛 讜诇讛诇谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬专 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽砖转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛讬转专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛拽砖转


The Tosefta stated: If the city was shaped like a bow or like the Greek letter gamma, one regards it as if the interior space were full of houses and courtyards, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there. Rav Huna said: With regard to a city that is shaped like a bow, the following distinction applies: If there are less than four thousand cubits between the two ends of the bow, so that the Shabbat limits measured from the two ends of the city overlap, the interior space of the bow is regarded as if it were filled with houses, and one measures the Shabbat limit of the city from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow. But if that is not the case, and the distance between the two ends of the bow is four thousand cubits or more, one measures the Shabbat limit from the bow itself.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讜诪转 讛注讬专 砖谞驻专爪讛 讘诪讗讛 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜讗讞转 讜砖诇讬砖


The Gemara asks: Did Rav Huna actually say that the distance between two sections of a single city that renders them separate entities is four thousand cubits? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: With regard to the wall of a city that was breached, even if there is a gap between two sections of the city, the city is still considered a single entity if the breach is no more than 141鈪 cubits? However, if the breach is wider, the two sections are considered separate entities. Apparently, a distance of 141鈪 cubits suffices to separate between two sections of a city and to render them separate entities.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘专讜讞 讗讞转 讻讗谉 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转


Rabba bar Ulla said: That is not difficult. Here, where Rav Huna speaks of four thousand cubits, he is referring to a case where the gap is on only one side, as the other side, the bow, is inhabited; but there, where he speaks of 141鈪 cubits, he is referring to a case where the breach is from two sides, which truly renders the city two separate entities.


讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讜转谞讬谉 拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讜拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉


The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rav Huna teaching us in the case of the breached city wall, that one allocates a karpef, an area measuring slightly more than seventy cubits, to this section of the city and a karpef to that section of the city? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna already say this on one occasion? As we learned in a mishna:


谞讜转谞讬谉 拽专驻祝 诇注讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讜 拽专驻祝 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 砖转讬 注讬讬专讜转


One allocates a karpef to every city, i.e., an area of slightly more than seventy cubits is added to the boundary of a city and the Shabbat limit is measured from there; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: They spoke of the measure of a karpef only with regard to the space between two adjacent cities, i.e., if adjacent cities are separated by a shorter distance than that, they are considered one city.


讜讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讜拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗诇讗 拽专驻祝 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讬讛诐


And it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this issue. Rav Huna said: A karpef is added to this city and another karpef is added to that city, so that as long as the cities are not separated by a distance of slightly more than 141 cubits, they are considered one entity. And 岣yya bar Rav said: One allocates only one karpef to the two of them. Accordingly, Rav Huna has already stated that the measure of a karpef is added to both cities in determining whether they are close enough to be considered a single entity.


爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 爪讚 讛讬转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara answers: It is necessary for Rav Huna to state this halakha in both instances, as, had he taught it to us only here, in the case of the breached wall, one might have said that a karpef is allocated to each city only in that case because it had an aspect of permissibility from the outset, namely, the two sections originally formed one city. But there, with regard to the two cities, say that this is not the case and the two cities are only considered as one if they are separated by less than the measure of a single karpef.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讞讬拽讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬拽讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had he taught it to us only there, with regard to the two cities, one might have said that only in that case is a karpef allocated to each city because one karpef would be too cramped for the use of both cities. But here, in the case of the breached wall, where one karpef would not be too cramped for the use of both sections, as the vacant space is inside the city, in an area that had not been used in this fashion before the wall was breached, say that this is not the case and a single karpef is sufficient. Therefore, it was necessary to state this halakha in both cases.


讜讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讘讬谉 讬转专 诇拽砖转 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬转专 诪讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


The Gemara asks: And how much distance may there be between the imaginary bowstring and the center of the bow in a city that is shaped like a bow? Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Two thousand cubits. Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said: Even more than two thousand cubits.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讚专 讗转讬 讚专讱 讘转讬诐:


Abaye said: It stands to reason in accordance with the opinion of Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as if one wants, he can return and go anywhere within the bow by way of the houses. Since one can always walk to the end of the city, and from there he is permitted to walk down the line of the imaginary bowstring, he should also be permitted to walk from the middle of the bow to the bowstring, even if the distance is more than two thousand cubits.


讛讬讜 砖诐 讙讚讜讚讬讜转 讙讘讜讛讜转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讙讚讜讚讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 转拽专讛


We learned in the mishna: If there were remnants of walls ten handbreadths high on the outskirts of a city, they are considered part of the city, and the Shabbat limit is measured from them. The Gemara asks: What are these remnants? Rav Yehuda said: Three partitions that do not have a roof over them, which are considered part of the city despite the fact that they do not comprise a proper house.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 转拽专讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇讜 砖诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛 谞驻砖 砖讬砖 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛讙砖专 讜讛拽讘专 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讜讘讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讻讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讗讜专讜讜转 讜讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖讘砖讚讜转 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讛讘讜专讙谞讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讛 讜讛讘讬转 砖讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛


The dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of two partitions that have a roof over them, what is the halakha? Is this structure also treated like a house? Come and hear a proof from the Tosefta: These are the structures that are included in the city鈥檚 extension: A monument [nefesh] over a grave that is four cubits by four cubits; and a bridge or a grave in which there is a residence; and a synagogue in which there is a residence for the sexton or synagogue attendant, and which is used not only for prayer services at specific times; and an idolatrous temple in which there is a residence for the priests; and similarly, horse stables and storehouses in the fields in which there is a residence; and small watchtowers in the fields; and similarly, a house on an island in the sea or lake, which is located within seventy cubits of the city; all of these structures are included in the city鈥檚 boundaries.


讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛 谞驻砖 砖谞驻专爪讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讛讙砖专 讜讛拽讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讜讘讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讻讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讗讜专讜讜转 讜讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖讘砖讚讜转 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讘讜专 讜砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 讜讙讚专 讜砖讜讘讱 砖讘转讜讻讛 讜讛讘讬转 砖讘住驻讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛


And these structures are not included in the boundaries of a city: A tomb that was breached on both sides, from here to there, i.e., from one side all the way to the other; and similarly, a bridge and a grave that do not have a residence; and a synagogue that does not have a residence for the sexton; and an idolatrous temple that does not have a residence for the priests; and similarly, stables and storehouses in fields that do not have a residence, and therefore are not used for human habitation; and a cistern, and an elongated water ditch, and a cave, i.e., a covered cistern, and a wall, and a dovecote in the field; and similarly, a house on a boat that is not permanently located within seventy cubits of the city; all of these structures are not included in the city鈥檚 boundaries.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 谞驻砖 砖谞驻专爪讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 转拽专讛 诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 转拽专讛


In any case, it was taught that a tomb that was breached on both sides, from here to there, is not included in the city鈥檚 boundaries. What, is this not referring to a case where there is a roof on the tomb, and the two remaining walls are not included in the city鈥檚 boundaries even though they have a roof? The Gemara answers: No, the Tosefta is referring to a case where there is no roof on the tomb.


讘讬转 砖讘讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬转 砖注砖讜讬 诇驻谞讜转 讘讜 讻诇讬诐 砖讘住驻讬谞讛


The Gemara asks: A house on an island in the sea, what is it suitable for if it is not actually part of the inhabited area? Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a house used to move a ship鈥檚 utensils into it for storage.


讜诪注专讛 讗讬谉 诪转注讘专转 注诪讛 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪注专讛 诪转注讘专转 注诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讬砖 讘谞讬谉 注诇 驻讬讛


The Gemara raises another question with regard to the Tosefta: And is a cave on the outskirts of a city really not included in its extension? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita: A cave is included in its extension? Abaye said: That statement applies when there is a structure built at its entrance, which is treated like a house on the outskirts of the city.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬谉 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛砖诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: If there is a structure at the entrance to the cave, why is the cave mentioned? Let him derive the halakha that it is treated like a house because of the structure itself. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where the cave serves to complete the structure, i.e., where the area of the structure and cave combined are only four by four cubits, which is the minimum size of a house.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬讜砖讘讬 爪专讬驻讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞 讘转讬讛谉


The discussion with regard to measuring Shabbat limits has been referring to a properly built city. Rav Huna said: Those who dwell in huts, i.e., in thatched hovels of straw and willow branches, are not considered inhabitants of a city. Therefore, one measures the Shabbat limit for them only from the entrance to their homes; the huts are not combined together and considered a city.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬讞谞讜 注诇 讛讬专讚谉 诪讘讬转 讛讬砖讬诪讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 (讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讗转专讗 讜讛讜讬 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 注诇 转诇转讗 驻专住讬


Rav 岣sda raised an objection: The Torah states with regard to the Jewish people in the desert: 鈥淎nd they pitched by the Jordan, from Beit-HaYeshimot to Avel-Shittim in the plains of Moab鈥 (Numbers 33:49), and Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: I myself saw that place, and it is three parasangs [parsa], the equivalent of twelve mil, by three parasangs.


讜转谞讬讗 讻砖讛谉 谞驻谞讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻谞讬谉 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇爪讚讬讛谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛谉


And it was taught in a baraita: When they would defecate in the wilderness, they would not defecate in front of themselves, i.e., in front of the camp, and not to their sides, due to respect for the Divine Presence; rather, they would do so behind the camp. This indicates that even on Shabbat, when people needed to defecate, they would walk the entire length of the camp, which was considerably longer than two thousand cubits, which equals one mil. It is apparent that the encampment of the Jewish people was considered to be a city despite the fact that it was composed of tents alone. How, then, did Rav Huna say that those who live in huts are not considered city dwellers?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚讙诇讬 诪讚讘专 拽讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讬讞谞讜 讜注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讬住注讜 讻诪讗谉 讚拽讘讬注 诇讛讜 讚诪讬


Rava said to him: The banners of the desert, you say? Are you citing a proof from the practice of the Jewish people as they traveled through the desert according to their tribal banners? Since it is written with regard to them: 鈥淎ccording to the commandment of the Lord they remained encamped, and according to the commandment of the Lord they journeyed鈥 (Numbers 9:20), it was considered as though it were a permanent residence for them. A camp that is established in accordance with the word of God is regarded as a permanent settlement.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讛讜拽讘注讜


Rav 岣nnana bar Rav Kahana said that Rav Ashi said: If there are three courtyards of two properly built houses among a settlement of huts, they have been established as a permanent settlement, and the Shabbat limit is measured from the edge of the settlement.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜砖讘讬 爪专讬驻讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬 诪讚讘专讜转 讞讬讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬诐 讜谞砖讬讛谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 砖诇讛谉


On the topic of people who dwell in huts, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Those who dwell in huts, such as shepherds who pass from one place to another and stay in a single location for only a brief period, and desert travelers, their lives are not lives, i.e., they lead extremely difficult lives, and their wives and children are not always their own, as will be explained below.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬砖 讘讬专讬讗 讗讜诪专 讬讜砖讘讬 爪专讬驻讬谉 讻讬讜砖讘讬 拽讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讘谞讜转讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗专讜专 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛


That was also taught in the following baraita: Eliezer of Biriyya says: Those who dwell in huts are like those who dwell in graves. And with regard to one who marries their daughters, the verse says: 鈥淐ursed be he who sleeps with any manner of beast鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:21).


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专讙讬砖讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘讟讘讬诇讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this harsh statement with regard to the daughters of those who dwell in huts or travel in deserts? Ulla said: They do not have bathhouses, and therefore the men have to walk a significant distance in order to bathe. There is concern that while they are away their wives commit adultery, and that consequently their children are not really their own. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Because they sense when one another immerses. Similarly to the men, the women must walk a significant distance in order to immerse in a ritual bath. Since the settlement is very small and everyone knows when the women go to immerse, it is possible for an unscrupulous man to use this information to engage in adulterous relations with them by following them and taking advantage of the fact that they are alone.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞讛专讗 讚住诪讬讱 诇讘讬转讗


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the explanations of Ulla and Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them in a case where there is a river that is adjacent to the house, and it is suitable for immersion but not for bathing. Consequently, the women would not have to go far to immerse themselves, but the men would still have to walk a significant distance in order to bathe.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 注讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讬专拽 讗讬谉 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 专砖讗讬 诇讚讜专 讘讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讬专拽 诪注诇讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖诇砖讛 诪专讘讬谉 讗转 讛讝讘诇 讜讻讜驻驻讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 诪诪讗讜专 注讬谞讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉


Having mentioned various places of residence, the Gemara cites what Rav Huna said: Any city that does not have vegetables, a Torah scholar is not permitted to dwell there for health reasons. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that vegetables are beneficial to a person鈥檚 health? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Three things increase one鈥檚 waste, bend his stature, and remove one five-hundredth of the light of a person鈥檚 eyes; and they are


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 52-58 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will complete the fourth chapter of Masechet Eruvin and begin the fifth.聽 We will learn about extending...
120529394_624938108179677_4481227949437121154_o

Unexpected Opportunities

Print
Anyone who learns daf yomi knows that there are often ideas in a typical daf which resonate with what...

Eruvin 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 55

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘专 讚讜住讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 诪注讘专 诇讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 砖讗诐 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇注诇讜转 讗讞专讬讛 讜讗诐 诪注讘专 诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇注讘讜专 讗讞专讬讛


And this idea, that one must exert great effort to retain one鈥檚 Torah knowledge, is in accordance with what Avdimi bar 岣ma bar Dosa said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥or is it beyond the sea鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:12鈥13)? 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥 indicates that if it were in heaven, you would have to ascend after it, and if it were beyond the sea, you would have to cross after it, as one must expend whatever effort is necessary in order to study Torah.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 转诪爪讗 讘诪讬 砖诪讙讘讬讛 讚注转讜 注诇讬讛 讻砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 转诪爪讗 讘诪讬 砖诪专讞讬讘 讚注转讜 注诇讬讛 讻讬诐


Expounding the verse differently, Rava said: 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥 means that Torah is not to be found in someone who raises his mind over it, like the heavens, i.e., he thinks his mind is above the Torah and he does not need a teacher; nor is it to be found in someone who expands his mind over it, like the sea, i.e., he thinks he knows everything there is to know about the topic he has learned.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 讘砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 转诪爪讗 讘讙住讬 专讜讞 讜诇讗 诪注讘专 诇讬诐 讛讬讗 诇讗 转诪爪讗 诇讗 讘住讞专谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘转讙专讬诐:


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: 鈥淚t is not in heaven鈥 means that Torah is not to be found in the haughty, those who raise their self-image as though they were in heaven. 鈥淣or is it beyond the sea鈥 means that it is not to be found among merchants or traders who are constantly traveling and do not have the time to study Torah properly.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘专讬谉 讗转 讛注专讬诐 讗专讜讻讛 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讗 注讙讜诇讛 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转 诪专讜讘注转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转 讛讬转讛 专讞讘讛 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜拽爪专讛 诪爪讚 讗讞专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖讜讛


After the lengthy aggadic digression, the Gemara returns to the topic of the mishna, extending the outskirts of a city. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How does one extend the boundaries of cities? If the city is long, in the shape of a rectangle, the Shabbat limit is measured from the boundary as it is. If the city is round, one creates simulated corners for it, rendering it square, and the Shabbat limit is measured from there. If it is square, one does not create additional corners for it. If the city was wide on one side and narrow on the other side, one regards it as though the two sides were of equal length, adding to the narrow side to form a square.


讛讬讛 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讜爪讗 讻诪讬谉 驻讙讜诐 讗讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬 驻讙讜诪讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讞讜讟 诪转讜讞 注诇讬讛谉 讜诪讜讚讚 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讛讬转讛 注砖讜讬讛 讻诪讬谉 拽砖转 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讙讗诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 讜诪讜讚讚 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


If one house in a row of dwellings was protruding like a turret, or if two houses were protruding like two turrets, one regards them as though a cord is stretched over their outer edge along the length of the city, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there. If the city was shaped like a bow or like the Greek letter gamma, one regards it as though the interior space were full of houses and courtyards, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there.


讗诪专 诪专 讗专讜讻讛 讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗专讬讻讗 讜拽讟讬谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讛 驻讜转讬讗 讗讗讜专讻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara proceeds to analyze the Tosefta. The Master said: If the city is long, the Shabbat limit is measured from the boundary as it is. The Gemara expresses surprise: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach this halakha only with regard to a case where the city is long and narrow. Lest you say: Let us give its breadth the dimension of its length and regard the city as if it were square, it teaches us that we do not do so.


诪专讜讘注转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讝讜讬讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪专讘注讗 讜诇讗 诪专讘注讗 讘专讬讘讜注 注讜诇诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬专讘注讗 讘专讬讘讜注 注讜诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Tosefta stated: If the city is square, one does not create additional corners for it. Once again the Gemara asks: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only with regard to a case where the shape of the city is square but that square is not aligned with the four directions of the world, i.e., north, south, east, and west. Lest you say: Let us align the square with the four directions of the world, it teaches us that this is not done.


讛讬讛 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讜爪讗 讻诪讬谉 驻讙讜诐 讗讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬 驻讙讜诪讬谉 讛砖转讗 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讗诪专转 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Tosefta also stated: If one house in a row of dwellings was protruding like a turret, or if two houses were protruding like two turrets, one regards them as though a cord is stretched over their outer edge along the length of the city, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there. The Gemara asks: Now, if with regard to one house, you said to extend the city鈥檚 boundaries, with regard to two houses, is it necessary to say so?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakha only with regard to a case where the two houses were protruding on two different sides of the city. Lest you say: When a house protrudes from one side, we say that the city is extended even due to a single house, but if houses protrude from two sides we do not say so; therefore, it teaches us to regard the city as though it is extended on both sides.


讛讬转讛 注砖讜讬讛 讻诪讬谉 拽砖转 讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讙讗诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 讜诪讜讚讚 诪诪谞讛 讜诇讛诇谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬专 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽砖转 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛讬转专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛 诪谉 讛拽砖转


The Tosefta stated: If the city was shaped like a bow or like the Greek letter gamma, one regards it as if the interior space were full of houses and courtyards, and one measures two thousand cubits beginning from there. Rav Huna said: With regard to a city that is shaped like a bow, the following distinction applies: If there are less than four thousand cubits between the two ends of the bow, so that the Shabbat limits measured from the two ends of the city overlap, the interior space of the bow is regarded as if it were filled with houses, and one measures the Shabbat limit of the city from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow. But if that is not the case, and the distance between the two ends of the bow is four thousand cubits or more, one measures the Shabbat limit from the bow itself.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讜诪转 讛注讬专 砖谞驻专爪讛 讘诪讗讛 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讜讗讞转 讜砖诇讬砖


The Gemara asks: Did Rav Huna actually say that the distance between two sections of a single city that renders them separate entities is four thousand cubits? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: With regard to the wall of a city that was breached, even if there is a gap between two sections of the city, the city is still considered a single entity if the breach is no more than 141鈪 cubits? However, if the breach is wider, the two sections are considered separate entities. Apparently, a distance of 141鈪 cubits suffices to separate between two sections of a city and to render them separate entities.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘专讜讞 讗讞转 讻讗谉 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转


Rabba bar Ulla said: That is not difficult. Here, where Rav Huna speaks of four thousand cubits, he is referring to a case where the gap is on only one side, as the other side, the bow, is inhabited; but there, where he speaks of 141鈪 cubits, he is referring to a case where the breach is from two sides, which truly renders the city two separate entities.


讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讜转谞讬谉 拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讜拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉


The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rav Huna teaching us in the case of the breached city wall, that one allocates a karpef, an area measuring slightly more than seventy cubits, to this section of the city and a karpef to that section of the city? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna already say this on one occasion? As we learned in a mishna:


谞讜转谞讬谉 拽专驻祝 诇注讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专讜 拽专驻祝 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 砖转讬 注讬讬专讜转


One allocates a karpef to every city, i.e., an area of slightly more than seventy cubits is added to the boundary of a city and the Shabbat limit is measured from there; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: They spoke of the measure of a karpef only with regard to the space between two adjacent cities, i.e., if adjacent cities are separated by a shorter distance than that, they are considered one city.


讜讗讬转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讜拽专驻祝 诇讝讜 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗诇讗 拽专驻祝 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讬讛诐


And it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this issue. Rav Huna said: A karpef is added to this city and another karpef is added to that city, so that as long as the cities are not separated by a distance of slightly more than 141 cubits, they are considered one entity. And 岣yya bar Rav said: One allocates only one karpef to the two of them. Accordingly, Rav Huna has already stated that the measure of a karpef is added to both cities in determining whether they are close enough to be considered a single entity.


爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 爪讚 讛讬转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara answers: It is necessary for Rav Huna to state this halakha in both instances, as, had he taught it to us only here, in the case of the breached wall, one might have said that a karpef is allocated to each city only in that case because it had an aspect of permissibility from the outset, namely, the two sections originally formed one city. But there, with regard to the two cities, say that this is not the case and the two cities are only considered as one if they are separated by less than the measure of a single karpef.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讞讬拽讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬拽讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had he taught it to us only there, with regard to the two cities, one might have said that only in that case is a karpef allocated to each city because one karpef would be too cramped for the use of both cities. But here, in the case of the breached wall, where one karpef would not be too cramped for the use of both sections, as the vacant space is inside the city, in an area that had not been used in this fashion before the wall was breached, say that this is not the case and a single karpef is sufficient. Therefore, it was necessary to state this halakha in both cases.


讜讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讘讬谉 讬转专 诇拽砖转 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬转专 诪讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


The Gemara asks: And how much distance may there be between the imaginary bowstring and the center of the bow in a city that is shaped like a bow? Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Two thousand cubits. Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said: Even more than two thousand cubits.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讚专 讗转讬 讚专讱 讘转讬诐:


Abaye said: It stands to reason in accordance with the opinion of Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as if one wants, he can return and go anywhere within the bow by way of the houses. Since one can always walk to the end of the city, and from there he is permitted to walk down the line of the imaginary bowstring, he should also be permitted to walk from the middle of the bow to the bowstring, even if the distance is more than two thousand cubits.


讛讬讜 砖诐 讙讚讜讚讬讜转 讙讘讜讛讜转 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讙讚讜讚讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 转拽专讛


We learned in the mishna: If there were remnants of walls ten handbreadths high on the outskirts of a city, they are considered part of the city, and the Shabbat limit is measured from them. The Gemara asks: What are these remnants? Rav Yehuda said: Three partitions that do not have a roof over them, which are considered part of the city despite the fact that they do not comprise a proper house.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜讬砖 注诇讬讛谉 转拽专讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇讜 砖诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛 谞驻砖 砖讬砖 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛讙砖专 讜讛拽讘专 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讜讘讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讻讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讗讜专讜讜转 讜讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖讘砖讚讜转 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讛讘讜专讙谞讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讛 讜讛讘讬转 砖讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛


The dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of two partitions that have a roof over them, what is the halakha? Is this structure also treated like a house? Come and hear a proof from the Tosefta: These are the structures that are included in the city鈥檚 extension: A monument [nefesh] over a grave that is four cubits by four cubits; and a bridge or a grave in which there is a residence; and a synagogue in which there is a residence for the sexton or synagogue attendant, and which is used not only for prayer services at specific times; and an idolatrous temple in which there is a residence for the priests; and similarly, horse stables and storehouses in the fields in which there is a residence; and small watchtowers in the fields; and similarly, a house on an island in the sea or lake, which is located within seventy cubits of the city; all of these structures are included in the city鈥檚 boundaries.


讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛 谞驻砖 砖谞驻专爪讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讛讙砖专 讜讛拽讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讞讝谉 讜讘讬转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讻讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讗讜专讜讜转 讜讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖讘砖讚讜转 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜讘讜专 讜砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 讜讙讚专 讜砖讜讘讱 砖讘转讜讻讛 讜讛讘讬转 砖讘住驻讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 诪转注讘专讬谉 注诪讛


And these structures are not included in the boundaries of a city: A tomb that was breached on both sides, from here to there, i.e., from one side all the way to the other; and similarly, a bridge and a grave that do not have a residence; and a synagogue that does not have a residence for the sexton; and an idolatrous temple that does not have a residence for the priests; and similarly, stables and storehouses in fields that do not have a residence, and therefore are not used for human habitation; and a cistern, and an elongated water ditch, and a cave, i.e., a covered cistern, and a wall, and a dovecote in the field; and similarly, a house on a boat that is not permanently located within seventy cubits of the city; all of these structures are not included in the city鈥檚 boundaries.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 谞驻砖 砖谞驻专爪讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讻讗 转拽专讛 诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 转拽专讛


In any case, it was taught that a tomb that was breached on both sides, from here to there, is not included in the city鈥檚 boundaries. What, is this not referring to a case where there is a roof on the tomb, and the two remaining walls are not included in the city鈥檚 boundaries even though they have a roof? The Gemara answers: No, the Tosefta is referring to a case where there is no roof on the tomb.


讘讬转 砖讘讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬转 砖注砖讜讬 诇驻谞讜转 讘讜 讻诇讬诐 砖讘住驻讬谞讛


The Gemara asks: A house on an island in the sea, what is it suitable for if it is not actually part of the inhabited area? Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a house used to move a ship鈥檚 utensils into it for storage.


讜诪注专讛 讗讬谉 诪转注讘专转 注诪讛 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪注专讛 诪转注讘专转 注诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讬砖 讘谞讬谉 注诇 驻讬讛


The Gemara raises another question with regard to the Tosefta: And is a cave on the outskirts of a city really not included in its extension? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach in a baraita: A cave is included in its extension? Abaye said: That statement applies when there is a structure built at its entrance, which is treated like a house on the outskirts of the city.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬谉 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛砖诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: If there is a structure at the entrance to the cave, why is the cave mentioned? Let him derive the halakha that it is treated like a house because of the structure itself. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where the cave serves to complete the structure, i.e., where the area of the structure and cave combined are only four by four cubits, which is the minimum size of a house.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬讜砖讘讬 爪专讬驻讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞 讘转讬讛谉


The discussion with regard to measuring Shabbat limits has been referring to a properly built city. Rav Huna said: Those who dwell in huts, i.e., in thatched hovels of straw and willow branches, are not considered inhabitants of a city. Therefore, one measures the Shabbat limit for them only from the entrance to their homes; the huts are not combined together and considered a city.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬讞谞讜 注诇 讛讬专讚谉 诪讘讬转 讛讬砖讬诪讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 (讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讗转专讗 讜讛讜讬 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 注诇 转诇转讗 驻专住讬


Rav 岣sda raised an objection: The Torah states with regard to the Jewish people in the desert: 鈥淎nd they pitched by the Jordan, from Beit-HaYeshimot to Avel-Shittim in the plains of Moab鈥 (Numbers 33:49), and Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: I myself saw that place, and it is three parasangs [parsa], the equivalent of twelve mil, by three parasangs.


讜转谞讬讗 讻砖讛谉 谞驻谞讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻谞讬谉 诇讗 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜诇讗 诇爪讚讬讛谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专讬讛谉


And it was taught in a baraita: When they would defecate in the wilderness, they would not defecate in front of themselves, i.e., in front of the camp, and not to their sides, due to respect for the Divine Presence; rather, they would do so behind the camp. This indicates that even on Shabbat, when people needed to defecate, they would walk the entire length of the camp, which was considerably longer than two thousand cubits, which equals one mil. It is apparent that the encampment of the Jewish people was considered to be a city despite the fact that it was composed of tents alone. How, then, did Rav Huna say that those who live in huts are not considered city dwellers?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚讙诇讬 诪讚讘专 拽讗诪专转 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讬讞谞讜 讜注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讬住注讜 讻诪讗谉 讚拽讘讬注 诇讛讜 讚诪讬


Rava said to him: The banners of the desert, you say? Are you citing a proof from the practice of the Jewish people as they traveled through the desert according to their tribal banners? Since it is written with regard to them: 鈥淎ccording to the commandment of the Lord they remained encamped, and according to the commandment of the Lord they journeyed鈥 (Numbers 9:20), it was considered as though it were a permanent residence for them. A camp that is established in accordance with the word of God is regarded as a permanent settlement.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讛讜拽讘注讜


Rav 岣nnana bar Rav Kahana said that Rav Ashi said: If there are three courtyards of two properly built houses among a settlement of huts, they have been established as a permanent settlement, and the Shabbat limit is measured from the edge of the settlement.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜砖讘讬 爪专讬驻讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬 诪讚讘专讜转 讞讬讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 讞讬讬诐 讜谞砖讬讛谉 讜讘谞讬讛谉 讗讬谞谉 砖诇讛谉


On the topic of people who dwell in huts, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Those who dwell in huts, such as shepherds who pass from one place to another and stay in a single location for only a brief period, and desert travelers, their lives are not lives, i.e., they lead extremely difficult lives, and their wives and children are not always their own, as will be explained below.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬砖 讘讬专讬讗 讗讜诪专 讬讜砖讘讬 爪专讬驻讬谉 讻讬讜砖讘讬 拽讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讘谞讜转讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗专讜专 砖讜讻讘 注诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛


That was also taught in the following baraita: Eliezer of Biriyya says: Those who dwell in huts are like those who dwell in graves. And with regard to one who marries their daughters, the verse says: 鈥淐ursed be he who sleeps with any manner of beast鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:21).


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专讙讬砖讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘讟讘讬诇讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this harsh statement with regard to the daughters of those who dwell in huts or travel in deserts? Ulla said: They do not have bathhouses, and therefore the men have to walk a significant distance in order to bathe. There is concern that while they are away their wives commit adultery, and that consequently their children are not really their own. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Because they sense when one another immerses. Similarly to the men, the women must walk a significant distance in order to immerse in a ritual bath. Since the settlement is very small and everyone knows when the women go to immerse, it is possible for an unscrupulous man to use this information to engage in adulterous relations with them by following them and taking advantage of the fact that they are alone.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞讛专讗 讚住诪讬讱 诇讘讬转讗


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the explanations of Ulla and Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara explains: There is a practical difference between them in a case where there is a river that is adjacent to the house, and it is suitable for immersion but not for bathing. Consequently, the women would not have to go far to immerse themselves, but the men would still have to walk a significant distance in order to bathe.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 注讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讬专拽 讗讬谉 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 专砖讗讬 诇讚讜专 讘讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讬专拽 诪注诇讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖诇砖讛 诪专讘讬谉 讗转 讛讝讘诇 讜讻讜驻驻讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 诪诪讗讜专 注讬谞讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉


Having mentioned various places of residence, the Gemara cites what Rav Huna said: Any city that does not have vegetables, a Torah scholar is not permitted to dwell there for health reasons. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that vegetables are beneficial to a person鈥檚 health? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Three things increase one鈥檚 waste, bend his stature, and remove one five-hundredth of the light of a person鈥檚 eyes; and they are


Scroll To Top