Eruvin 55a — the Talmud in English

And

this is what we said: that one must exert oneself and make signs and devices so that the Torah will endure in the hands of those who study it [the wording of Rashi] —

This is what Avdimi bar Hama bar Dosa said,

for this is how one should precisely interpret the wording of the verse:

What is written

with regard to the Torah:

“It is not in Heaven, nor is it beyond the sea” —

“It is not in Heaven” —

for 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.

Thus, one must exert oneself so greatly for the Torah.

Rava said: “It is not in Heaven” —

you will not find

the Torah

in one who elevates his mind over it,

who takes pride in its study,

like Heaven.

And you will not find it in one who expands his mind over it like the sea.

Rabbi Yohanan said: “It is not in Heaven” —

you will not find

the Torah

among the haughty.

“Nor beyond the sea” —

you will not find it among merchants

who go around with their merchandise among the towns,

nor among traders

who go around within their city, but among one who sits and diligently studies his learning.

The Sages taught: How does one extend the boundaries of the cities?

1. A city that is

long —

one extends its surroundings

as it is,

as will be explained below.

2. A city that is

round —

one makes corners for it,

one encloses the circle around it in a square, as though it were square, and measures the two thousand cubits only from the boundaries of the square.

And it follows that if one comes to leave from the side of the corner of the city, he gains the entire difference between the circle and the corner.

3. A city that is

square —

one does not make corners for it.

This will be explained below.

4. If

it was broad on one side and narrow on the other side —

we regard it as though it were equal,

extending its narrow side in accordance with its long side, and regarding it as though it were a rectangle. And one measures from the boundaries of the rectangle.

5. If

there was

in it

one house

that was

projecting

from the city

like a blemish,

a projection that protrudes from the city.

Or

if there were in it

two houses

that

projected

from the city

like two blemishes —

we regard them,

the two houses protruding from the city,

as though a cord were stretched over them,

between them,

and measure from it,

from the place of the cord stretched between the two projections,

and beyond it, two thousand cubits.

6.

If it was made like an arch or like a gamma

( resembling a final kaf]) —

we regard it as though it were filled with houses and courtyards,

between the two ends of the arch or the gamma.

And one measures from it and beyond it two thousand cubits.

The Master said,

we learned in the beraita: If it was

long —

one measures from it

as it is.

And we object:

Is it obvious

that one measures from it as it is!?

And we answer:

It is necessary; [the case is] where it is long

on its lengthwise side

and narrow,

small on its widthwise side.

It might have entered your mind to give it width according to its length,

for I might have said that one should add the measure of the width to the measure of the length; that is, one should widen it until one makes it square, and its width and length will be equal.

It teaches us

that one leaves it as it is, in the form of a rectangle.

We further learned in this beraita: If the city was

square —

one does not make corners for it.

And we are astonished:

Is it obvious,

for there is nothing to square!

And we answer:

It is necessary, for

although

it is square,

the city, nevertheless

it is not square according to the

directions of

the square of the world.

See illustration]

It might have entered your mind,

I might have said

to square it according to the square of the world

See illustration].

It teaches us

that one leaves it in its own square, as it is.

We learned in the beraita:

If one house projected like a blemish, or two houses projected like two blemishes.

And we considered this:

Now,

for even if only

one house projected from the city, you said

that that house expands the entire city according to the measure of the projection of the house.

If there were

two houses

projecting — and is it

necessary

to say that both of them expand the boundaries of the city by stretching a cord between them!?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

the beraita is dealing with a case in which the two houses emerged and projected

from two directions

that were separate.

And the novelty of the beraita is:

It might have entered your mind,

I might have said that only

with regard to one direction do we say

that the city is expanded, but

with regard to two directions —

we do not say

that it is expanded on both its sides for each of the houses, since that would be an excessive leniency.

It teaches us

that one is lenient in measuring the boundaries even when expanding the city’s boundaries on both its sides, by means of the two houses projecting from its two sides.

We learned in the beraita:

If

the city

was made like an arch or like a gamma —

we regard it as though it were,

the place between the chord and the arch, or between the upright of the gamma and its diagonal,

filled with houses and courtyards.

And one measures from it,

from the chord or from the diagonal of the gamma,

and beyond it —

two thousand cubits.

Rav Huna said: A city made like an arch —

only

if there are less than four thousand cubits between its two ends,

so that the boundary of each of its ends is encompassed within the two-thousand-cubit boundary of the other end — only then

does one measure for it from the chord.

For one regards the place between the two ends of the arch as though it were filled with houses.

But if not,

if the two ends of the arch are more than four thousand cubits distant from one another, its two ends are not regarded as though they create one city in the area between them, and therefore

one measures for it

its boundary only

from the arch,

and not from the chord.

And we object:

Did Rav Huna indeed say this,

that one joins the two ends of the city even at a distance close to four thousand cubits?

But Rav Huna said: When the wall of a city was breached at one hundred forty-one

cubits

and a third

of a cubit, and likewise there is an empty area within the city [of such a measure] between its two parts — the two parts of the city become like two separate cities. Even though there is a distance less than the Sabbath limit between the two parts of the city, one does not regard the empty area between the parts of the city as though it were filled with houses!

Rabba bar Ulla said: It is not difficult,

for one must distinguish between the cases:

Here —

with regard to the arch, the city was divided only

in one direction,

but it remains joined by means of the arch.

Therefore, if the boundary measured from one end of the arch is encompassed within the boundary measured from the other end, one may regard the city as though the area between the two ends of the arch were filled with houses.

Here —

with regard to the city that was breached

in two directions

opposite one another, where there is nothing joining them.

And

we considered this: Is it so that

what does it teach us

when the city was breached in two directions — is it only this,

that they give

the measure of

a karkef

of seventy cubits and fractions

to this one, and

the measure of

a karkef to that one?

But

already

Rav Huna said it once.