Eruvin 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

As we learned:

one grants a karpef

of seventy cubits and residual cubits

to the city,

considering this area to be the karpef of the city, annexed to it, and measuring the city's boundary only from beyond the karpef,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: They said

that one grants the city

a karpef

from which to measure,

but

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

two towns

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

And

concerning this Mishna

it was stated:

Rav Huna said:

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

a karpef

also

to

this city,

and

one also grants

a karpef to

that city,

as well.

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

And Hiyya bar Rav said: One grants only one karpef

in order

to

join

the two of them.

Since Rav Huna had already taught us his novel ruling in explaining the Mishna, that two karpefs must be granted in order to join two neighboring towns, why did he need to repeat this as a separate statement of his concerning a city whose wall had been breached?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us both rulings:

Had he taught us

only

here,

concerning a city whose wall was breached, that two karpefs are granted to the two parts of the city, I would have said that it is only here that two karpefs are granted, in order to join the two parts of the city into one city,

because it had

this city

an initial aspect of permissibility.

For before the city's wall was breached, it was one city, and the city's boundary was measured from anywhere within the surrounding city walls; there was no need to measure the houses inside the city.

But there,

when joining two towns that had never previously been together,

say that one does not

grant, for the purpose of joining them from now on, more than one karpef.

And had he taught us there,

concerning two towns to which two karpefs are granted for the purpose of joining them, I would have said that it is specifically to two towns that two karpefs are granted,

because their use is cramped

when the two towns use an area measuring one karpef, and therefore each of them is granted a separate karpef-measure for its use. Consequently, the place of the karpef is considered part of the city, and the two towns are joined by virtue of the joining of their respective karpefs.

But here,

concerning a city whose wall was breached,

where their use is not cramped,

for originally, before the city was divided, they did not use the area created between them for the purposes for which a karpef is used,

say that one does not

grant the two parts a double karpef in order to join them.

Therefore

it is necessary

for Rav Huna to teach us both laws.

And now the Gemara discusses a city shaped like a bow, whose boundary, according to the beraita, is measured from the bowstring and not from the houses.

And how much

distance

can there be,

possibly,

between

the

bowstring and the bow,

for us to be able to consider the area 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 on the bow] to the bowstring, it is no longer possible to consider the area between the bow and the bowstring as though it were filled with houses.

This is so even though, in the other direction, 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 bowstring by departing from the houses on the two sides of the bow.

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

if the distance between the bowstring 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 opinion of Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, stands to reason.

For even if the bowstring were more than two thousand cubits from the bow, it would still be possible for every resident of the city to walk throughout the entire area between the bow and the bowstring:

if he wishes,

the person living on the bow can walk less than two thousand cubits and reach every place between the bowstring and the bow—he can do so!

For when he

returns,

he returns to the end of the bow by

coming

along

the way of

the

houses

of the city until he reaches the end of the bow. From there, the distance to the center of the bowstring is less than two thousand cubits on either side, and the two boundaries of the two ends of the bow overlap there. Therefore it is permitted to walk from one end of the bow to the other along the length of the bowstring.

Therefore, the entire area between the bowstring and the bow should be considered as though it were filled with houses, and on this basis it is permitted to leave the houses and go to the bowstring, even though the distance between them is more than two thousand cubits.

We have therefore learned several novel points concerning a city shaped 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 the boundaries of the two ends overlap, this does not make it possible to walk from the houses on the bow to the bowstring unless the entire area between the bowstring and the bow is considered as though it were filled with houses.

b. Likewise, this city is not squared off.

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 fewer than two thousand cubits between the bowstring and the bow.

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

in that very area

if they leave the houses on the bow and proceed toward the bowstring.

The reason for this is that the shape 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.

Therefore, two laws were stated concerning it, which at first glance appear to be contradictory definitions.

On the one hand, all the inhabitants of the city may walk throughout the entire city, since it is one city.

On the other hand, the inhabitants of this city are considered “residents of huts” [see the commentary of the Ri in the previous folio], who have no connection with one another; therefore, two thousand cubits are measured for each one from his house [see Rashi on the previous folio].

See the Ritva’s explanation of the sugya, and the expanded discussion in the book Kiryat Ariel.

We learned in the Mishna:

There were there high remnants of walls, ten handbreadths high.

And we raised a question concerning it:

What are “remnants of walls”?

Rav Yehuda said:

Ruins of houses that have

three partitions

and

no roof over them.

They raised a dilemma before them: Ruins that have

two partitions

and a roof over them—

what is

the law: are they included with it?

Come and hear: These are included with it:

A burial structure,

a building over a grave [see the Mishna],

that is four cubits by four cubits.

And a bridge, and a grave that contain a dwelling.

And a synagogue that has a dwelling for the sexton.

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

And the stables and storehouses in the fields that contain a dwelling.

And the burgenin,

a structure resembling a booth

within it

of the field.

And a house on

the

islands.

If all these are within seventy cubits and residual cubits of the city,

these are included with it.

And these are not included with it:

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

And a bridge and a grave that have no dwelling.

And a synagogue that has no dwelling for the sexton.

And a house of idolatry that has no dwelling for its priests.

And the stables and storehouses in the fields that have no dwelling.

And a pit, a ditch, a cave, a fence, and a dovecote within it

of the field.

And a house on a ship—

these are not included with it.

And we analyze this:

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

Is it not—

that there is a roof?

This proves that a structure with two partitions and a roof is included with it.

And we reject this:

No.

This is not proof, for here the case discussed is one

where there is no roof.

We raised another question:

A house on the sea—

what purpose does it serve?

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

We raised another question:

And

if

a cave is not included with it?

But didn’t Rabbi Hiyya teach: A cave is included with it?

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

And we challenge this: If there is a house,

let it be included by virtue 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: Residents of huts

whose place is not considered part of a city, and therefore

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

Rav Hisda raised an objection

from that which 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

while they were in the wilderness, they would leave the cloud,

but they would not relieve themselves in front of it or to its sides,

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

Rather,

they would relieve themselves

behind it,

for the cloud would not return in that direction.

This proves that since they went out and traveled from the front of the camp to its rear, outside the cloud, a distance of three parasangs, residents of tents or huts are likewise joined together as a city; one does not measure for them from the entrances of their tents, but from the boundary of their settlement.

Rava said to him: Are you speaking of the standards of the wilderness?

That case is different.

Since it is written concerning them [Numbers 9]

“By the word of the Lord they encamped, and by the word of the Lord they journeyed,”

“At the word of the Lord they would encamp, and at the word of the Lord they would journey,”

it is as though their

place of residence

were fixed.

Rav Hinana bar Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Ashi: If there are there three courtyards, each containing two houses,

they are established

as a city.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Residents of huts and travelers in deserts—

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

It was also taught thus: Eliezer of Biriyya says: Residents of huts

their lives are not lives, for they do not enjoy the benefits of settled life, and they are

like residents of graves.

And concerning their daughters He says

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

“Cursed is the one who lies with any animal.”

What is the reason

that they are forbidden?

Ulla said: Because they have no bathhouses,

and when their husbands go to a distant place to bathe and the city is deserted at that time, their wives become vulnerable to adulterers.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Because they recognize one another through the immersion

of the women.

Since they have no ritual baths, the women must immerse in a distant place, and they do not go there alone; rather, a woman asks her companion to accompany her. The neighbors notice this, and a wicked man 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

that is suitable not for bathing but only for immersion; they are not noticed because it is a river

adjacent to the house,

but there is still concern about bathhouses located in a distant place.

Rav Huna said: Any city that has no vegetables

that are good for food and inexpensive

a Torah scholar is not permitted to reside in it,

because due to the high cost of other foods, he cannot afford to study Torah.

And we are astonished:

Does this mean that vegetables are beneficial

?

But it was taught: Three things increase excrement

produced by a person,

bend his stature

and

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