Eruvin 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

And

this is what we said: one must exert oneself and devise signs and strategies so that the Torah will endure in the hands of its students [in Rashi’s wording] -

This is what Avdimi bar Ḥama bar Dosa said,

as is to be inferred from the wording of the verse:

What is the meaning of that which 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 over after it.

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

Rava said: “It is not in heaven” -

you will not find

the Torah

in one who elevates his mind over it,

who is arrogant about his learning,

like the heavens.

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 from town to town with their merchandise,

nor among traders

who circulate within their own city, but among one who sits and applies himself diligently to his study

The Sages taught: How are the boundaries of cities determined?

a. A city that is

long -

its boundaries are extended around it

as it is,

as will be explained below.

b. A city that is

round -

corners are made for it,

enclosing the circle around it in a square, as though it were square, and the two thousand cubits are measured only from the boundaries of the square.

It follows that if one wishes to leave from the corner of the city, he gains the entire difference between the circle and the corner.

c. A

square city -

corners are not made for it.

This will be explained below.

d. If

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

it is viewed as though it were of equal dimensions,

with its shorter side extended to correspond to its longer side, and it is viewed as though it were a rectangle. The measurement is taken from the boundaries of the rectangle.

e. If

there was

in it

one house

that was

projecting

from the city

like a notched projection,

a protrusion extending from the city.

Or

if there were

two houses

that

projected

from the city

like two notches -

they are viewed,

the two houses projecting from the city,

as though a cord were stretched across them,

between them,

and the measurement is taken from it,

from the place where the cord is stretched between the two projections,

and onward, two thousand cubits.

f. If

it was shaped like an arc or like a gamma

[resembling a final kaf] -

it is viewed as though it were filled with houses and courtyards,

between the two ends of the arc or gamma.

And the measurement is taken from it and onward, two thousand cubits.

The Master said,

we learned in the beraita: If it was

long -

we measure from it

as it is.

And we challenge this:

Is it obvious

that we measure from it as it is!?

And we answer:

No, it is necessary to state this in a case where it is long

on account of its length,

and narrow,

narrow on account of its width.

Lest you say: Let its width be applied to its length,

as I might have said that the measure of its width should be added to the measure of its length; that is, that it should be widened until it is made square, so that its width and length are equal.

It teaches us this

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

We also learned in this beraita: If the city was

square -

corners are not made for it.

And we wonder:

Is it obvious,

for there is nothing to square further!?

And we answer:

No, it is necessary to state this in a case where

the city is indeed

square

but

not square in the

directions of the

square of the world.

[See illustration]

Lest you say,

I might have said

that it should be squared according to the square of the world

[See illustration].

It teaches us this

that it is left in its own square, as it is.

We learned in the beraita:

If one house projected like a notch, or two houses projected like two notches.

And we inquire about this:

Now,

even if only

one house, you said

that this house extends the entire city according to the extent of its projection.

If

two houses

project, is it necessary

to ask

whether both of them extend the city’s boundaries by stretching a cord between them!?

And we answer:

No, it is necessary to state this,

as the beraita is dealing with a case where the two houses projected

from two directions,

separate from one another.

And the novelty of the beraita is:

Lest you say,

I might have said that only

from one direction do we say

that the city is extended, but

from two directions -

we do not say

that it is extended on both sides on account of each of the houses, since that would be an excessive leniency.

It teaches us this

that we are lenient in measuring the boundaries even by extending the city’s boundaries on both sides, through the two houses projecting from its two sides.

We learned in the beraita:

If

the city

was shaped like an arc or like a gamma -

it is viewed as though it were

the area between the chord and the arc, or between the upright and diagonal sides of the gamma -

filled with houses and courtyards.

And one measures from it,

from the chord or from the diagonal side of the gamma,

and onward -

two thousand cubits.

Rav Huna said: A city shaped like an arc -

only

if there are fewer 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

is it measured for from the chord.

For the area between the two ends of the arc is viewed as though it were filled with houses.

But if not,

if the two ends of the arc are more than four thousand cubits apart, its two ends are not considered as though they create a single city in the area between them; therefore

it is measured for

its boundary only

from the arc,

and not from the chord.

And we challenge this:

Did Rav Huna really say this,

that the two ends of the city are joined even when they are nearly four thousand cubits apart?

But Rav Huna said: If the city wall was breached by one hundred forty-one

cubits

and one-third

of a cubit, and similarly there is an empty area within the city [of this measure] between its two parts, the two parts of the city become like two separate cities. This is despite the fact that the distance between the two parts of the city is less than the Shabbat boundary, and the empty area between the parts of the city is not considered as though it were filled with houses!

Rabba bar Ulla said: It is not difficult,

for the cases must be distinguished:

Here -

in the case of an arc, the city is divided only

in one direction,

but it remains connected by means of the arc.

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

Here -

in the case where the city was breached

in two opposite directions,

with nothing connecting them.

And

we inquire about this: Is it really the case that

what this teaches us

when the city is breached in two directions is merely

that we give

the measure of a

karpef

of seventy cubits and a remainder

to this one, and

the measure of a

karpef to that one?

But

already

Rav Huna stated this once.