Eruvin 55b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

one gives a karpef

of seventy cubits and remnants

to the city,

for this area is considered the city's karpef, attached to it, and the city's boundary is measured only beyond the karpef,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: They said

that one gives the city

a karpef

from which to measure

only

they said that one gives a karpef to the city in order to join

between two towns

that are close, in order to make them one city, when they are less than the measure of a karpef apart from one another.

And

concerning this Mishna

it was stated:

Rav Huna said:

When measuring the karpef in order to join two neighboring towns, one gives

a karpef

also

to

this city,

and

one also gives a karpef

a karpef to

this city

as well.

That is, if they are not as far from one another as the measure of two karpefs, they are considered one city.

And Hiyya bar Rav said: One gives only one karpef

in order

to

join the

two of them.

And since Rav Huna had already taught us his novel point in explaining the Mishna, that it is necessary to give two karpefs in order to join two neighboring towns, why did he have to repeat and state this as a separate statement of his concerning a city whose wall was breached?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to inform us of both of them:

For if he had informed us

Rav Huna only

here,

concerning the wall of the city that was breached, where two karpefs are given to the two parts of the city, I would say that only here are two karpefs given, in order to join the two parts of the city together into one city,

because it had

this city

a side of permission from the outset.

For before the wall of the city was breached, it had been one city, and the city's boundary was measured from every place at the surrounding city walls, and there was no need to measure the houses within the city.

But there,

in joining two towns that had never been together

I would say: no,

from now on one gives for their joining only one karpef.

And if he had informed us there,

concerning two towns to which two karpefs are given for the sake of joining them, I would say that specifically to two towns are two karpefs given

because their use is cramped

for the two towns to use an area measuring one karpef, and therefore each one is given the measure of a karpef separately, in order to use it. And therefore the place of the karpef is considered part of the city, and it follows that the two towns are joined by virtue of the joining in their karpefs.

But here,

concerning the wall of the city that was breached,

where their use is not cramped,

for at the outset, before the city was divided, they did not use the area that came into being between them for the use of a karpef,

I would say: no,

the two parts are not given a doubled karpef in order to join them.

Therefore

it is necessary

for Rav Huna to inform us of both laws.

And now the Gemara deals with the subject of a city made like a bow, whose boundary, according to the beraita, is measured from the string and not from the houses.

And how much

distance

can there be,

is it possible,

between

the

string and the bow,

so that we can consider the place between them as though it were filled with houses?

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Two thousand cubits.

For if he travels more than two thousand cubits, which is the Shabbat boundary, from his house [situated in the bow] to the string, it is no longer possible to consider the place between the bow and the string as though it were filled with houses.

This is so even though, on the other hand, there is not a distance of four thousand cubits between the two ends of the bow, and he can reach every place between the bow and the string by leaving from the houses on the two sides of the bow.

Rava, the son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said: Even

if the distance between the string and the bow were

more than two thousand cubits,

the area between them is considered as though it were filled with houses.

Abaye said: The view of Rava, the son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, is reasonable.

For even if the string were farther from the bow than two thousand cubits, it is possible for every one of the inhabitants of the city to walk throughout the entire area between the bow and the string:

For if he wishes,

the person who lives in the bow to walk less than two thousand cubits and reach every place located between the string and the bow—he can do so!

For when

he returns,

he returns to the end of the bow by

coming,

traveling

by way of

the

houses

of the city until he reaches the end of the bow. And from there the distance to the center of the string is less than two thousand cubits on each side, and there the two boundaries of the two ends of the bow overlap one another. Therefore it is permitted to walk from one end of the bow to the other end of the bow, along the length of the “string.”

And therefore the entire area between the string and the bow should be considered as though it were filled with houses, and by virtue of this it is permitted to leave from the houses toward the string, even though the distance between them is more than two thousand cubits.

And we have learned several novel points concerning a city made like a bow:

A. Although when the distance between the two ends of the bow is less than four thousand cubits, it is possible to walk between the two ends of the bow because of the overlap of the boundaries of the two ends of the bow, this does not enable walking from the houses in the bow to the string unless we consider the entire area between the string and the bow as though it were filled with houses.

B. Likewise, this city is not squared.

C. When there is a difference of more than four thousand cubits between the two ends of the bow, it is impossible to walk between the two ends of the bow, even if there are less than two thousand cubits between the string and the bow.

And even though it is permitted for all the inhabitants of the city to walk

in that very area itself

if they leave from the houses of the bow toward the “string.”

And the reason for the matter is that the form of the bow clearly demonstrates the form of the city: although it is one city, it extends in opposite directions, as though it were divided into two cities.

And therefore two laws were stated concerning it, which apparently appear to be contradictory definitions.

On the one hand, all the inhabitants of the city can walk throughout the entire city, for it is one city.

But on the other hand, the inhabitants of this city are considered “inhabitants of huts” [see the commentary of the Ritva on the preceding page], who have no connection between them; therefore, for each one, two thousand cubits are measured from his house [see Rashi on the preceding page].

See the Ritva for an explanation of the sugya, and at length in the book “Kiryat Ariel.”

We learned in the Mishna:

There were there high embankments ten handbreadths [high].

And we raise a question concerning it:

What are embankments?

Rav Yehuda said:

Ruins of houses that have

three partitions

and

that have no roof over them.

They raised a dilemma before them: Ruins that have

two partitions and

have a roof over them—

what is

that they should be included with it?

Come and hear: These are the ones that are included with it:

A burial structure,

a building over a grave [see the Mishna],

that has four cubits by four cubits.

And the bridge, and the grave that have a dwelling house in them.

And the synagogue that has a dwelling house for the attendant.

And the house of idolatry that has a dwelling house for the priests.

And the stables and the storehouses in the fields that have a dwelling house in them.

And the burganin

like a booth

that is within it

of the field.

And the house that is in

the

sea.

If all these were within seventy cubits and remnants of the city—

these are included with it.

And these are the ones that are not included with it:

A burial structure whose two sides were breached, this way and that way.

And the bridge and the grave that do not have a dwelling house.

And the synagogue that does not have a dwelling house for the attendant.

And the house of idolatry that does not have a dwelling house for the priests.

And the stables and the storehouses in the fields that do not have a dwelling house.

And a pit and a ditch and a cave and a fence and a dovecote that is within it

of the field.

And the house that is in a ship—

these are not included with it.

And we infer:

In any event, it teaches: A burial structure whose two sides were breached, this way and that way.

Is it not—

that there is a roof?

And it is demonstrated that two partitions and a roof are included with it.

And we reject this:

No.

This is no proof, for here it is speaking

where there is no roof.

We raise another question concerning it:

A house in the sea—

what use is it fit for?

Rav Pappa said: A house made for storing the utensils of a ship.

We raise another question concerning it:

And

if

a cave is not included with it?

But Rabbi Hiyya taught: A cave is included with it!

Abaye said: When there is a building over its mouth.

And we challenge this: If there is a house—

then let it go out by reason of the building itself!

And we answer:

No, it is necessary,

that the cave

complete

the area of the house to four cubits by four cubits.

Rav Huna said: The inhabitants of huts

their place is not considered a city, and therefore

one measures for them only from the entrance of their houses.

Rav Hisda raised an objection

from what is written: [Numbers 33]

“And they encamped by the Jordan, from Beit-HaYeshimot.”

But the Children of Israel dwelled in the wilderness in tents.

And Rabba bar bar Hana said: I myself saw that place, and it was three parasangs by three parasangs.

And it was taught: When they relieved themselves,

when they were in the wilderness they would go outside the cloud—and

they would not relieve themselves neither before them nor to their sides

outside the cloud, lest the cloud turn in their direction, with the Ark of the Covenant inside it, and it would be disgraceful for them to relieve themselves in the presence of the Ark.

Rather,

they would relieve themselves

behind them,

for the cloud would not return there.

And it is demonstrated from the fact that they went out and traveled from the front of the camp to its rear, outside the cloud, three parasangs, that even inhabitants of tents or huts join together like a city, and one does not measure for them from the entrance of their tents, but from the boundary of their settlement.

Rava said to him: Are you speaking of the banners of the wilderness!

There it is different.

Since it is written concerning them [Numbers 9]

“According to the word of the Lord they would encamp, and according to the word of the Lord they would journey”—

they are considered as one for whom

a place of residence has been fixed

and

so it seems.

Rav Hinnana bar Rav Kahana said that Rav Ashi said: If there are there three courtyards of two houses—

they become fixed

as a city.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The inhabitants of huts and those who travel through deserts—

their lives are not lives, and their wives and their children are not theirs.

It was also taught so: Eliezer איש Birya says: The inhabitants of huts—

their lives are not lives, for they do not enjoy themselves, and they are

like inhabitants of graves.

And concerning their daughters he says

that they are forbidden to their husbands, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 27]:

“Cursed is he who lies with any animal.”

What is the reason

that they are forbidden?

Ulla said: For they have no bathhouses,

and when their husbands go to a distant place in order to bathe, and the city is abandoned at that time, their wives submit to adulterers.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Because they become known to one another through immersion

of the women.

For because they have no ritual baths, the women need to immerse in a distant place, and they do not go there alone; rather, the woman asks her friend to accompany her, and the neighbors notice this, and there is a wicked person who pursues them and secludes himself with them. [See Rashi.]

And the Gemara explains:

What is the difference between them?

The difference between them is

when there is near their house

a river,

which is suitable not for bathing but only for immersion, and they do not become known, because it is a river

that is near the house,

but there nevertheless remains the concern of bathhouses located in a distant place.

Rav Huna said: Any city in which there are no vegetables,

which are good for food and inexpensive—

a Torah scholar is not permitted to dwell in it,

because on account of the high price of the other foods he does not have enough [means] to study Torah.

And we wonder:

Is this to say that vegetables are beneficial

and helpful?

But it was taught: Three increase the refuse

that comes out of a person,

and bend the stature

of a person,

and take away one five-hundredth of a person's eyesight, and these are they: